Clean It Up
UK Window Cleaning Forum => Window Cleaning Forum => Topic started by: Spruce on January 21, 2025, 06:38:26 pm
-
Back in 2023, I started a post regarding the death of Andrew Langstaff who was working for Teesside Window Cleaning.
http://www.cleanitup.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=223220.0
A few days ago, an inquest into Andrew's death was held in a Middlesbrough court over 2 days.
Here is our local newspaper's report of the proceedings.
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/andrew-langstaff-inquest-billingham-crash-30801868
The newspaper reports that Huran Hussain testified that strapping an IBC tank into the back of a van was common practice. It isn't. He testified that he believed the straps were safe and was not aware of any other methods used to secure the cylinders at the time. He said: "I wish at the time I knew how dangerous they could be." Absolute lies. Many on this and the other forum warned him about this unsafe practice numerous times, but he chose to ignore the advice. Anyone who commented against what he was doing was seen by him as an idiot.
I'm saddened that this situation has led to a window cleaner's death, but glad that this ratchet strapping an IBC tank down has been shown to be an 'inappropriate' way of securing the tank by the crash investigators.
I spoke to one of his ex-employees a few months ago. He has a Transit van with an IBC tank ratchet strapped in the back. I pointed out how dangerous this was. He said this setup was just temporary. I saw his van a couple of days ago and he still has the IBC tank strapped in. I honestly hope the outcome of this inquest makes him and any others sit up and rectify this.
Interestingly, the investigators also stated that the van was being driven erratically just before the crash. There was no indication that there was drink involved, but the comment made was that Google maps was on his phone and that a photo had been accessed during the journey. Was Andrew distracted by his phone?
-
There must have been cheap ratchet straps
Iam an ex wagon driver and other things used them many times on 40 ft platforms never an issue.
-
All the haulage industry use ratchet straps. It's a case of using the right tonnage straps safely for the load being carried.
IBC tanks even in a frame are too weak, as the tubing is very thin and easily crushable when ratchet strapped around the framework. There is very little strength in them frames and should never be used even temporarily for window cleaning.
-
All the haulage industry use ratchet straps. It's a case of using the right tonnage straps safely for the load being carried.
IBC tanks even in a frame are too weak, as the tubing is very thin and easily crushable when ratchet strapped around the framework. There is very little strength in them frames and should never be used even temporarily for window cleaning.
I agree what your saying even taking them off lorries on the fork lift there not good
-
All the haulage industry use ratchet straps. It's a case of using the right tonnage straps safely for the load being carried.
IBC tanks even in a frame are too weak, as the tubing is very thin and easily crushable when ratchet strapped around the framework. There is very little strength in them frames and should never be used even temporarily for window cleaning.
The other important factor with the haulage industry is that the ratchet straps are secured to very strong hooks down the side of the trailer.
I've seen them just using luggage ratchet straps onto the eye hooks on the van's floor. They have absolutely no strength at all, even if the ratchet straps are heavy duty.
Transits are know to be rust buckets, which includes the van's floor.
-
I do wonder if anyone has given chains any thoughts to replace straps?
That's how skip companies operate.
-
Interestingly, the investigators also stated that the van was being driven erratically just before the crash. There was no indication that there was drink involved, but the comment made was that Google maps was on his phone and that a photo had been accessed during the journey. Was Andrew distracted by his phone?
They go a lot further than your short synopsis here don't they ?
Witnesses described the driver "swerving all over the road" before he crashed into an oncoming Citroen C3, on Sandy Lane West, while he was on the wrong side of the road.
dashcam footage appeared to show the dad moving across the path of another driver on the Billingham Arms roundabout and narrowly missing mounting the kerb and pedestrian barriers.
He said the driver then straddled the central white lines before returning to the correct side of the road. "There are several occasions along that journey prior to the collision where Andrew's vehicle drifts across the centre road markings," the investigator explained. "At one point it is almost fully in the opposing carriageway for his direction for travel."
Mr Woodhouse said investigators revealed Mr Langstaff's phone map app was in use up until the point of collision and a photos app had also been accessed during the journey. The jury heard he was on the wrong side of the road when he crashed into another vehicle and tragically died from his injuries.
Whilst its true, IBC's have no real strength or integrity to be ratcheted down the real issue here is driving on the wrong side of the road will probably get you killed anyway.
-
Interestingly, the investigators also stated that the van was being driven erratically just before the crash. There was no indication that there was drink involved, but the comment made was that Google maps was on his phone and that a photo had been accessed during the journey. Was Andrew distracted by his phone?
They go a lot further than your short synopsis here don't they ?
Witnesses described the driver "swerving all over the road" before he crashed into an oncoming Citroen C3, on Sandy Lane West, while he was on the wrong side of the road.
dashcam footage appeared to show the dad moving across the path of another driver on the Billingham Arms roundabout and narrowly missing mounting the kerb and pedestrian barriers.
He said the driver then straddled the central white lines before returning to the correct side of the road. "There are several occasions along that journey prior to the collision where Andrew's vehicle drifts across the centre road markings," the investigator explained. "At one point it is almost fully in the opposing carriageway for his direction for travel."
Mr Woodhouse said investigators revealed Mr Langstaff's phone map app was in use up until the point of collision and a photos app had also been accessed during the journey. The jury heard he was on the wrong side of the road when he crashed into another vehicle and tragically died from his injuries.
Whilst its true, IBC's have no real strength or integrity to be ratcheted down the real issue here is driving on the wrong side of the road will probably get you killed anyway.
But why was he weaving all over the road ? Probably due to the tank moving causing the vehicle to become unstable with water sloshing around in an unsecured tank would be the most reasonable explanation.
-
I have a DIY setup and use a ratchet to secure my van.
What are the other options?
-
I have a DIY setup and use a ratchet to secure my van.
What are the other options?
Whatever size tank you have you can buy cages separately and bolt them in yourself
-
But why was he weaving all over the road ? Probably due to the tank moving causing the vehicle to become unstable with water sloshing around in an unsecured tank would be the most reasonable explanation.
Mr Woodhouse said the cylinder was 90-95% full and weighed around 800kg
-
But why was he weaving all over the road ? Probably due to the tank moving causing the vehicle to become unstable with water sloshing around in an unsecured tank would be the most reasonable explanation.
Mr Woodhouse said the cylinder was 90-95% full and weighed around 800kg
If the tank was un baffled then even that full you will still get surge in the tank causing it to become unstable
-
Interestingly, the investigators also stated that the van was being driven erratically just before the crash. There was no indication that there was drink involved, but the comment made was that Google maps was on his phone and that a photo had been accessed during the journey. Was Andrew distracted by his phone?
They go a lot further than your short synopsis here don't they ?
Witnesses described the driver "swerving all over the road" before he crashed into an oncoming Citroen C3, on Sandy Lane West, while he was on the wrong side of the road.
dashcam footage appeared to show the dad moving across the path of another driver on the Billingham Arms roundabout and narrowly missing mounting the kerb and pedestrian barriers.
He said the driver then straddled the central white lines before returning to the correct side of the road. "There are several occasions along that journey prior to the collision where Andrew's vehicle drifts across the centre road markings," the investigator explained. "At one point it is almost fully in the opposing carriageway for his direction for travel."
Mr Woodhouse said investigators revealed Mr Langstaff's phone map app was in use up until the point of collision and a photos app had also been accessed during the journey. The jury heard he was on the wrong side of the road when he crashed into another vehicle and tragically died from his injuries.
Whilst its true, IBC's have no real strength or integrity to be ratcheted down the real issue here is driving on the wrong side of the road will probably get you killed anyway.
What you say is absolutely true. But it's was the tank that crushed and killed him. His driving erratically was the death trigger. Had he been driving correctly and responsibly, then this wouldn't have happened.
His driving erratically was his fault, but the way the tank was secured was Hussain's fault. He provided his employee with an unsafe van.
The lesson for us all is that a tank not correctly installed can crush us against the steering wheel. A driver's airbag will probably make things worse when that activates. We also can't really on a bulkhead to save us.
We don't know what the outcome would have been had the tank been correctly fitted, but it behooves each of us to drive as carefully as we can and always focus on driving safely. Don't let our mobile phones distract us when driving.
-
When I operated in the UK my neighbour, a guy called Ryan Pym (he owned Taskforce UK) had an old rust bucket transit with a 1,000 litre tank strapped in to it with ratchet straps. It was a death trap, but of course he never drove it, it was what he gave the local junkies to go to London in to do their commercial work.
-
Millions of miles will have been covered over many years with window cleaners with strapped tanks. I'm sure we all know they aren't perfectly safe in an accident. But what is safe in an accident? Driving head on Into something at any kind of speed is very likely to cause injury or death regardless if there's a load in the back or how it's secured. Having 800l of water bolted in will still add force to the cab in a crash even if it stays in place.
Driving anything is safe until you crash, could it have been safer, maybe but so could not getting out of bed on a morning.
That said if you are employing you really should have all the boxes ticked in terms of health and safety and doing things by the book in case things go wrong. He should have had a crash tested system if employing, not necessarily because its safer but to cover his own back.
-
Next time you see a scaffolding lorry have a look at how the poles are stored.
-
this is just my opinion some will agree others will disagree
im a one man band been cleaning for 16 years with a 500l tank bolted to the chassis,im always concerned that i have half a ton on water behind me and drive accordingly
personally for me why would anyone expect webbing ratchet straps to hold half a tonne of water in place under hard braking ? especailly as the tank is sitting on the floor and with the weight of water is always looking to move forward under braking
i also would not put an employee in a van with a tank being help down by ratchet straps as i feel its an accident waiting to happen.
also the employee probably had no idea what the outcome could possibly be if he had to slam the anchors on.
a tragic waste of life !!! all he was trying to do was earn a few quid ! so sad
-
Obviously, by the sounds of it, the tank was unsuitable for the job and wasn't secured as good as it should have been. Then there's the manner of the driving.
There's nothing wrong with straps at all if they're implemented properly. What do you think secures every Human body in a vehicle? They're often preferable to chains, ever heard the term 'weakest link'? Anything is only as strong as it's weakest part. Crash tested systems are only rated to 30mph so most of the time you would be exceeding it's safe parameters. Common sense and good practice needs to be implemented in all scenarios when carrying a load.
-
There's nothing wrong with straps at all if they're implemented properly.
I agree, there is nothing wrong with a strapped Wyedale tank for instance. They're a solid tank thats not gonna deform.
One of the things you notice on the old Ionics crash test videos is that it doesn't really matter how an IBC is strapped or held, they are flimsy and just collapse when subject to full on frontal movement .They are designed to be stacked on a flat bed truck against a bulkhead and secured.
I like Wyedale tanks.
-
Obviously, by the sounds of it, the tank was unsuitable for the job and wasn't secured as good as it should have been. Then there's the manner of the driving.
There's nothing wrong with straps at all if they're implemented properly. What do you think secures every Human body in a vehicle? They're often preferable to chains, ever heard the term 'weakest link'? Anything is only as strong as it's weakest part. Crash tested systems are only rated to 30mph so most of the time you would be exceeding it's safe parameters. Common sense and good practice needs to be implemented in all scenarios when carrying a load.
If you read the crash investigation report and coroners report you will find that they state the straps are not suitable for securing a water tank inside a van .
-
Obviously, by the sounds of it, the tank was unsuitable for the job and wasn't secured as good as it should have been. Then there's the manner of the driving.
There's nothing wrong with straps at all if they're implemented properly. What do you think secures every Human body in a vehicle? They're often preferable to chains, ever heard the term 'weakest link'? Anything is only as strong as it's weakest part. Crash tested systems are only rated to 30mph so most of the time you would be exceeding it's safe parameters. Common sense and good practice needs to be implemented in all scenarios when carrying a load.
If you read the crash investigation report and coroners report you will find that they state the straps are not suitable for securing a water tank inside a van .
My friend and fellow windie crashed his van at over 30mph. His strapped in tank didn't move at all! It was still in situ when the loss adjuster visited too and was never mentioned in the claim. Straps could be made to be far more secure than a steel cage if you were drill the floor and utilise modified lashing points!
The report seems to state that those particular straps were inappropriate in that situation and not generally? Indicated that they were only securing the base of the tank. Also appears like the there was no protection from the 'makeshift' bulk head being 'ply wood'.
Basically sounds like a proper bodge job!
-
Obviously, by the sounds of it, the tank was unsuitable for the job and wasn't secured as good as it should have been. Then there's the manner of the driving.
There's nothing wrong with straps at all if they're implemented properly. What do you think secures every Human body in a vehicle? They're often preferable to chains, ever heard the term 'weakest link'? Anything is only as strong as it's weakest part. Crash tested systems are only rated to 30mph so most of the time you would be exceeding it's safe parameters. Common sense and good practice needs to be implemented in all scenarios when carrying a load.
Exactly. A Muppet using a 1000L IBC with luggage straps is different from someone using a 650L baffled tank with a pair of 5 tonne ratchet straps through a bolted and plated frame up against a factory bulkhead.
I just see either/or extremes between crash-tested and strapped with bungees to a pallet posted on here.
;D
-
Obviously, by the sounds of it, the tank was unsuitable for the job and wasn't secured as good as it should have been. Then there's the manner of the driving.
There's nothing wrong with straps at all if they're implemented properly. What do you think secures every Human body in a vehicle? They're often preferable to chains, ever heard the term 'weakest link'? Anything is only as strong as it's weakest part. Crash tested systems are only rated to 30mph so most of the time you would be exceeding it's safe parameters. Common sense and good practice needs to be implemented in all scenarios when carrying a load.
Exactly. A Muppet using a 1000L IBC with luggage straps is different from someone using a 650L baffled tank with a pair of 5 tonne ratchet straps through a bolted and plated frame up against a factory bulkhead.
I just see either/or extremes between crash-tested and strapped with bungees to a pallet posted on here.
;D
The whole point is the tank should not be against the bulkhead that’s half the problem
-
The core problem is that people extrapolate what happens under heavy braking at, say, 0.6g (IBC even unstrapped against a bulkhead doesn't move an inch) and assume similar things will be happening at 30g in an accident.
The challenge there is that if the load bulkhead fails the next real impediment to the movement of the tank is the bulkhead between the cab and the engine, by which time your goose is cooked.
I also agree that people seem only to compare crash-tested with insanely unsafe options when there's actually a range of options.
Vin
-
Obviously, by the sounds of it, the tank was unsuitable for the job and wasn't secured as good as it should have been. Then there's the manner of the driving.
There's nothing wrong with straps at all if they're implemented properly. What do you think secures every Human body in a vehicle? They're often preferable to chains, ever heard the term 'weakest link'? Anything is only as strong as it's weakest part. Crash tested systems are only rated to 30mph so most of the time you would be exceeding it's safe parameters. Common sense and good practice needs to be implemented in all scenarios when carrying a load.
Exactly. A Muppet using a 1000L IBC with luggage straps is different from someone using a 650L baffled tank with a pair of 5 tonne ratchet straps through a bolted and plated frame up against a factory bulkhead.
I just see either/or extremes between crash-tested and strapped with bungees to a pallet posted on here.
;D
The whole point is the tank should not be against the bulkhead that’s half the problem
And yet ...
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/securing-loads-on-hgvs-and-goods-vehicles/4-ways-to-secure-a-load-in-an-hgv-or-goods-vehicle#:~:text=If%20the%20vehicle%20has%20a,forward%20when%20the%20vehicle%20brakes.
Absolutist statement Splash.
It depends.
-
https://www.titanloadrestraints.co.uk/5000kg-x-10m-ratchet-strap-claw-hook-sale#:~:text=5%20Tonne%20Ratchet%20Strap%20with%20Claw%20Hooks%20%2D%2010%20Metres,-Designed%20for%20strength&text=With%20a%2010metre%20length%20and,and%202%2C500kg%20lashing%20capacity.
A pair of these triple wound through my 650L Wydale holes didn't let my 650L tank move when I hit a car side on at about 20mph.
The tank didn't even compress the plywood between it and the bulkhead and it was full to the brim.
-
Yep, the load should be placed up to the bulkhead. This aids the prevention of any momentum/movement of the load and adds to the combined restraint strength. Mine is placed there, and always has been exactly for this reason.
-
Obviously, by the sounds of it, the tank was unsuitable for the job and wasn't secured as good as it should have been. Then there's the manner of the driving.
There's nothing wrong with straps at all if they're implemented properly. What do you think secures every Human body in a vehicle? They're often preferable to chains, ever heard the term 'weakest link'? Anything is only as strong as it's weakest part. Crash tested systems are only rated to 30mph so most of the time you would be exceeding it's safe parameters. Common sense and good practice needs to be implemented in all scenarios when carrying a load.
Exactly. A Muppet using a 1000L IBC with luggage straps is different from someone using a 650L baffled tank with a pair of 5 tonne ratchet straps through a bolted and plated frame up against a factory bulkhead.
I just see either/or extremes between crash-tested and strapped with bungees to a pallet posted on here.
;D
The whole point is the tank should not be against the bulkhead that’s half the problem
And yet ...
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/securing-loads-on-hgvs-and-goods-vehicles/4-ways-to-secure-a-load-in-an-hgv-or-goods-vehicle#:~:text=If%20the%20vehicle%20has%20a,forward%20when%20the%20vehicle%20brakes.
Absolutist statement Splash.
It depends.
A van is totally different to an HGV and carrying liquids comes under a different category to solid objects thatcham who do the crash testing state tanks should not be against bulkheads
-
Yep, the load should be placed up to the bulkhead. This aids the prevention of any momentum/movement of the load and adds to the combined restraint strength. Mine is placed there, and always has been exactly for this reason.
Not with liquids thatcham state there should be a gap between the tank and bulkhead I believe it says for a 30 degree deformation of the tank so it can ruptured so the weight isn’t transferred through the bulkhead
-
Obviously, by the sounds of it, the tank was unsuitable for the job and wasn't secured as good as it should have been. Then there's the manner of the driving.
There's nothing wrong with straps at all if they're implemented properly. What do you think secures every Human body in a vehicle? They're often preferable to chains, ever heard the term 'weakest link'? Anything is only as strong as it's weakest part. Crash tested systems are only rated to 30mph so most of the time you would be exceeding it's safe parameters. Common sense and good practice needs to be implemented in all scenarios when carrying a load.
Exactly. A Muppet using a 1000L IBC with luggage straps is different from someone using a 650L baffled tank with a pair of 5 tonne ratchet straps through a bolted and plated frame up against a factory bulkhead.
I just see either/or extremes between crash-tested and strapped with bungees to a pallet posted on here.
;D
The whole point is the tank should not be against the bulkhead that’s half the problem
And yet ...
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/securing-loads-on-hgvs-and-goods-vehicles/4-ways-to-secure-a-load-in-an-hgv-or-goods-vehicle#:~:text=If%20the%20vehicle%20has%20a,forward%20when%20the%20vehicle%20brakes.
Absolutist statement Splash.
It depends.
A van is totally different to an HGV and carrying liquids comes under a different category to solid objects thatcham who do the crash testing state tanks should not be against bulkheads
From the same article-
"If you’re carrying a load in a van, you should:
*use straps secured to the vehicle body or pack any gaps between the load and the vehicle body
*load to the bulkhead between the cargo space and the cab"
-
Yep, the load should be placed up to the bulkhead. This aids the prevention of any momentum/movement of the load and adds to the combined restraint strength. Mine is placed there, and always has been exactly for this reason.
Not with liquids thatcham state there should be a gap between the tank and bulkhead I believe it says for a 30 degree deformation of the tank so it can ruptured so the weight isn’t transferred through the bulkhead
That's interesting. That's not what I've always been led to believe. Hard-to the bulkhead to limit momentum in the event of rapid deceleration. As stated on .gov
Do you have documentation from thatcham? I had a quick search and didn't find anything?
-
A bit more govenment advise specificaaly relating to an ibc.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/securing-loads-on-hgvs-and-goods-vehicles/6-how-to-carry-different-types-of-load-in-hgvs-and-goods-vehicles#:~:text=You%20must%20secure%20intermediate%20bulk,the%20top%20of%20the%20IBC
A bit further down it gives advise about "tanks" but its fairly vague.
I cant find anything relevant about Thatcham either, would be good if you could find something to upload Splash.
-
Obviously, by the sounds of it, the tank was unsuitable for the job and wasn't secured as good as it should have been. Then there's the manner of the driving.
There's nothing wrong with straps at all if they're implemented properly. What do you think secures every Human body in a vehicle? They're often preferable to chains, ever heard the term 'weakest link'? Anything is only as strong as it's weakest part. Crash tested systems are only rated to 30mph so most of the time you would be exceeding it's safe parameters. Common sense and good practice needs to be implemented in all scenarios when carrying a load.
Exactly. A Muppet using a 1000L IBC with luggage straps is different from someone using a 650L baffled tank with a pair of 5 tonne ratchet straps through a bolted and plated frame up against a factory bulkhead.
I just see either/or extremes between crash-tested and strapped with bungees to a pallet posted on here.
;D
The whole point is the tank should not be against the bulkhead that’s half the problem
And yet ...
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/securing-loads-on-hgvs-and-goods-vehicles/4-ways-to-secure-a-load-in-an-hgv-or-goods-vehicle#:~:text=If%20the%20vehicle%20has%20a,forward%20when%20the%20vehicle%20brakes.
Absolutist statement Splash.
It depends.
A van is totally different to an HGV and carrying liquids comes under a different category to solid objects thatcham who do the crash testing state tanks should not be against bulkheads
You need to read more carefully. From the same article. As Winpro points out.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/securing-loads-on-hgvs-and-goods-vehicles/4-ways-to-secure-a-load-in-an-hgv-or-goods-vehicle#:~:text=If%20you%E2%80%99re%20carrying,and%20the%20cab
Thatcham want to make sure that the tank fitted system isn't relying AT ALL on the bulkhead when testing. Because it may be fitted to a van with no load bulkhead.
Like I said - too much absolutist stuff from people on here.
-
Also it is perfectly legal - although I wouldn't personally rely on it - for a 1000L IBC full of (say) juice to be put in the back of a suitably rated van and lashed to its loading points with suitable straps. (Up against the bulkhead if this doesn't cause axle weight issues)
To me vehicle loading and securing it is all about ameliorating risk within the law.
-
Yep, the load should be placed up to the bulkhead. This aids the prevention of any momentum/movement of the load and adds to the combined restraint strength. Mine is placed there, and always has been exactly for this reason.
Not with liquids thatcham state there should be a gap between the tank and bulkhead I believe it says for a 30 degree deformation of the tank so it can ruptured so the weight isn’t transferred through the bulkhead
That's interesting. That's not what I've always been led to believe. Hard-to the bulkhead to limit momentum in the event of rapid deceleration. As stated on .gov
Do you have documentation from thatcham? I had a quick search and didn't find anything?
I had a load of paperwork from thatcham when I bought my first fitted tank from Ionic’s and it clearly stated that a water tank was different to a static load and should never be placed against a bulk head in a van they then showed the picture of the video in there blurb of the water tank rupturing , this video is still a available to see on YouTube it’s the video of the testing of Ionic’s tanks in a crash (http://www.cleanitup.co.uk/smf/1737642688_IMG_0480.jpeg)
-
That tank is not fully baffled so weight would have easy been transferred.
Why have 1 ton anchor points in a van.
Surely a fully baffled tank in a stainless steel cage with the correct straps would be adequate for the job.
I remember when Ionics started fitted tanks.
They pushed them like crazy trying to scare the likes of us diy wfp guys that there systems were the only legal option
That was years ago.
Any vehicle with a load traveling at speed is a liability.
I feel the wfp companies are pushing the insurance companies to get strapped down tanks made illegal so they can profit from it.
A big eoe.
Await incoming ;D
-
Yep, the load should be placed up to the bulkhead. This aids the prevention of any momentum/movement of the load and adds to the combined restraint strength. Mine is placed there, and always has been exactly for this reason.
Not with liquids thatcham state there should be a gap between the tank and bulkhead I believe it says for a 30 degree deformation of the tank so it can ruptured so the weight isn’t transferred through the bulkhead
That's interesting. That's not what I've always been led to believe. Hard-to the bulkhead to limit momentum in the event of rapid deceleration. As stated on .gov
Do you have documentation from thatcham? I had a quick search and didn't find anything?
I had a load of paperwork from thatcham when I bought my first fitted tank from Ionic’s and it clearly stated that a water tank was different to a static load and should never be placed against a bulk head in a van they then showed the picture of the video in there blurb of the water tank rupturing , this video is still a available to see on YouTube it’s the video of the testing of Ionic’s tanks in a crash (http://www.cleanitup.co.uk/smf/1737642688_IMG_0480.jpeg)
The pic says 12mph. Would a van crumple at a 12mph head on crash? I doubt it very much. Would having doors on vehicle help stop said vehicle crumpling so much? I think it would.
-
That tank is not fully baffled so weight would have easy been transferred.
Why have 1 ton anchor points in a van.
Surely a fully baffled tank in a stainless steel cage with the correct straps would be adequate for the job.
I remember when Ionics started fitted tanks.
They pushed them like crazy trying to scare the likes of us diy wfp guys that there systems were the only legal option
That was years ago.
Any vehicle with a load traveling at speed is a liability.
I feel the wfp companies are pushing the insurance companies to get strapped down tanks made illegal so they can profit from it.
A big eoe.
Await incoming ;D
Those ibc tanks were fully baffled with 4 inch drain pipe and it worked very well no surge at all I had one years ago , the latest black welded tanks are also fully baffled but you get much more surge as the baffles are now square welded in sections . The problem with using ratchet straps is the mounting eyes in the van aren’t rated enough to hold a liquid in place in an accident , the strap might be ok but the mounting point isn’t . It’s the insurance companies that are pushing to ban diy systems as all the serious accidents or deaths have happened with diy systems not the professional fitted ones it’s just a numbers game as far as they are concerned as they are making big payouts when this happens, obviously the number of deaths with WFP vans is very small compared to all the RTA S that happens but each death costs the insurance companies around 1 million a go , that figure is several years old so probably more now .
-
Yep, the load should be placed up to the bulkhead. This aids the prevention of any momentum/movement of the load and adds to the combined restraint strength. Mine is placed there, and always has been exactly for this reason.
Not with liquids thatcham state there should be a gap between the tank and bulkhead I believe it says for a 30 degree deformation of the tank so it can ruptured so the weight isn’t transferred through the bulkhead
That's interesting. That's not what I've always been led to believe. Hard-to the bulkhead to limit momentum in the event of rapid deceleration. As stated on .gov
Do you have documentation from thatcham? I had a quick search and didn't find anything?
I had a load of paperwork from thatcham when I bought my first fitted tank from Ionic’s and it clearly stated that a water tank was different to a static load and should never be placed against a bulk head in a van they then showed the picture of the video in there blurb of the water tank rupturing , this video is still a available to see on YouTube it’s the video of the testing of Ionic’s tanks in a crash (http://www.cleanitup.co.uk/smf/1737642688_IMG_0480.jpeg)
The pic says 12mph. Would a van crumple at a 12mph head on crash? I doubt it very much. Would having doors on vehicle help stop said vehicle crumpling so much? I think it would.
If you watch the video it’s 30 mph , no it wouldn’t crumple up like that at 12 mph
-
Anyone heard of any other window cleaner deaths than this Teeside one from a shifting tank? Which we know was in an erratically driven old van with an insecure full 1000L IBC tank?
In twenty plus years of wfp?
If so what were the circumstances?
-
Anyone heard of any other window cleaner deaths than this Teeside one from a shifting tank? Which we know was in an erratically driven old van with an insecure full 1000L IBC tank?
In twenty plus years of wfp?
If so what were the circumstances?
There have been several the previous one was a young person in there twenties believe it was Norfolk direction from memory ?
-
Anyone heard of any other window cleaner deaths than this Teeside one from a shifting tank? Which we know was in an erratically driven old van with an insecure full 1000L IBC tank?
In twenty plus years of wfp?
If so what were the circumstances?
There have been several the previous one was a young person in there twenties believe it was Norfolk direction from memory ?
Circumstances? Kind of tank? How secured?
-
Anyone heard of any other window cleaner deaths than this Teeside one from a shifting tank? Which we know was in an erratically driven old van with an insecure full 1000L IBC tank?
In twenty plus years of wfp?
If so what were the circumstances?
There have been several the previous one was a young person in there twenties believe it was Norfolk direction from memory ?
Circumstances? Kind of tank? How secured?
Google it there was loads of publicity about it , was a ratchet strapped in tank , no bulk head either a head on or rear end shunt very low speed impact he was crushed on the steering wheel small tank I think 350 ltr ? Guessing it might be just before Covid ? But time flies so could be a bit longer
-
Anyone heard of any other window cleaner deaths than this Teeside one from a shifting tank? Which we know was in an erratically driven old van with an insecure full 1000L IBC tank?
In twenty plus years of wfp?
If so what were the circumstances?
There have been several the previous one was a young person in there twenties believe it was Norfolk direction from memory ?
Circumstances? Kind of tank? How secured?
Google it there was loads of publicity about it , was a ratchet strapped in tank , no bulk head either a head on or rear end shunt very low speed impact he was crushed on the steering wheel small tank I think 350 ltr ? Guessing it might be just before Covid ? But time flies so could be a bit longer
No bulkhead? Ratchet straps rating? Strapped to what? How low a speed?
You seem to have some details. Be nice to have a reference.
-
Anyone heard of any other window cleaner deaths than this Teeside one from a shifting tank? Which we know was in an erratically driven old van with an insecure full 1000L IBC tank?
In twenty plus years of wfp?
If so what were the circumstances?
There have been several the previous one was a young person in there twenties believe it was Norfolk direction from memory ?
Circumstances? Kind of tank? How secured?
Google it there was loads of publicity about it , was a ratchet strapped in tank , no bulk head either a head on or rear end shunt very low speed impact he was crushed on the steering wheel small tank I think 350 ltr ? Guessing it might be just before Covid ? But time flies so could be a bit longer
No bulkhead? Ratchet straps rating? Strapped to what? How low a speed?
You seem to have some details. Be nice to have a reference.
Can’t remember all the details but thought it was mentioned on here at the time , don’t recall the rating of the straps as being mentioned, but no bulkhead, was a small Citroen belingo type of van think it was Norfolk or Lincolnshire way ? Someone must remember it it made national news at the time even down here , think it was the initial accident that was reported on rather than a coroner's inquest.
-
(http://www.cleanitup.co.uk/smf/1737678375_Screenshot_20250124-002443_Chrome.png)(http://www.cleanitup.co.uk/smf/1737678375_Screenshot_20250124-002451_Chrome.png)(http://www.cleanitup.co.uk/smf/1737678376_Screenshot_20250124-002517_Chrome.png)(http://www.cleanitup.co.uk/smf/1737678376_Screenshot_20250124-002501_Chrome.png)
-
It says it was a 4 vehicle accident. He was in a VW Caddy and had to take evasive action.
-
(http://www.cleanitup.co.uk/smf/1737678717_Screenshot_20250124-002933_Chrome.png)(http://www.cleanitup.co.uk/smf/1737678717_Screenshot_20250124-003128_Chrome.png)(http://www.cleanitup.co.uk/smf/1737678717_Screenshot_20250124-003118_Chrome.png)
13 years later and we're still discussing. Auravelling still asking the pertinent questions 👌
-
I forgot that exchange.
Brilliant posts Mattymarske.
-
Back in 2023, I started a post regarding the death of Andrew Langstaff who was working for Teesside Window Cleaning.
http://www.cleanitup.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=223220.0
A few days ago, an inquest into Andrew's death was held in a Middlesbrough court over 2 days.
Here is our local newspaper's report of the proceedings.
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/andrew-langstaff-inquest-billingham-crash-30801868
The newspaper reports that Huran Hussain testified that strapping an IBC tank into the back of a van was common practice. It isn't. He testified that he believed the straps were safe and was not aware of any other methods used to secure the cylinders at the time. He said: "I wish at the time I knew how dangerous they could be." Absolute lies. Many on this and the other forum warned him about this unsafe practice numerous times, but he chose to ignore the advice. Anyone who commented against what he was doing was seen by him as an idiot.
I'm saddened that this situation has led to a window cleaner's death, but glad that this ratchet strapping an IBC tank down has been shown to be an 'inappropriate' way of securing the tank by the crash investigators.
I spoke to one of his ex-employees a few months ago. He has a Transit van with an IBC tank ratchet strapped in the back. I pointed out how dangerous this was. He said this setup was just temporary. I saw his van a couple of days ago and he still has the IBC tank strapped in. I honestly hope the outcome of this inquest makes him and any others sit up and rectify this.
Interestingly, the investigators also stated that the van was being driven erratically just before the crash. There was no indication that there was drink involved, but the comment made was that Google maps was on his phone and that a photo had been accessed during the journey. Was Andrew distracted by his phone?
Thanks for highlighting important topic. It is very sad that someone has lost their life and the family lost a Father, Son and brother.
-
A van is totally different to an HGV and carrying liquids comes under a different category to solid objects thatcham who do the crash testing state tanks should not be against bulkheads
You are saying a lot of stuff that makes no sense at all, and i don't know where to start.... but i'll have a go....
[1] There is no 'categories' , i belive you made that up.
[2] If you can show me anywhere that Thatcham state a 'tank' or any load for that matter should NOT be against a bulkhead then i'll eat my hat.
[3] Thatcham is a testing facility, NOT an authority on anything.
[4] Have you an idea what it costs to put your idea through to fruition and get it tested by Thatcham ?
And lastly but not least.... you appear to have no grasp of physics. I'll explain......(Bulkhead and tank scenario)......
If i was to open up the palm of my hand to you in a high five scenario and allowed you to punch it, there is a great chance you'll really hurt my hand, maybe smash my wrist etc... It won't be a pleasant experience for me, for sure.
If i was to replicate that, but you had to start with your clenched fist resting in my palm nothing would really happen, other than you may push me over if i held up.
And thats the difference regards a load being against a bulkhead.
You also previously suggested that an IBC (of say about 800 litres) that was 90 to 95% full may cause someone to wobble all around the road. This is pure nonsense. Its a real small space with a real small amount of liquid sloshing about.
Infact, if you had a half full diesel tank in your van that could potentially topple you over... well according to your logic.
-
A van is totally different to an HGV and carrying liquids comes under a different category to solid objects thatcham who do the crash testing state tanks should not be against bulkheads
You are saying a lot of stuff that makes no sense at all, and i don't know where to start.... but i'll have a go....
[1] There is no 'categories' , i belive you made that up.
[2] If you can show me anywhere that Thatcham state a 'tank' or any load for that matter should NOT be against a bulkhead then i'll eat my hat.
[3] Thatcham is a testing facility, NOT an authority on anything.
[4] Have you an idea what it costs to put your idea through to fruition and get it tested by Thatcham ?
And lastly but not least.... you appear to have no grasp of physics. I'll explain......(Bulkhead and tank scenario)......
If i was to open up the palm of my hand to you in a high five scenario and allowed you to punch it, there is a great chance you'll really hurt my hand, maybe smash my wrist etc... It won't be a pleasant experience for me, for sure.
If i was to replicate that, but you had to start with your clenched fist resting in my palm nothing would really happen, other than you may push me over if i held up.
And thats the difference regards a load being against a bulkhead.
You also previously suggested that an IBC (of say about 800 litres) that was 90 to 95% full may cause someone to wobble all around the road. This is pure nonsense. Its a real small space with a real small amount of liquid sloshing about.
Infact, if you had a half full diesel tank in your van that could potentially topple you over... well according to your logic.
1 . The carriage of goods act has different categories of loads .
2. Thatcham stated that a liquid load should not be against a bulk head as it will transfer the inertia through it causing crush injury’s to the occupants , why do you think all type approved crash tested systems have a gap between tank and bulkhead .
3. Yes they are an I dependant testing agency recognised by insurance companies for many different test and they aren’t affiliated with any company so have no vested interest in one firm over another
4. Yes I do it costs tens of thousands of pounds or it did when two of the main crash tested systems had it done Craig mawlam did tell me how much it cost years ago but can’t remember the exact figure .
I think you are missing the whole point of having a gap between the tank and bulkhead the frame around the tank is designed to bend in an impact the tank ruptures and if a lid is fitted the water goes up to the roof of the van taking the inertia up not forward into the bulkhead and then the cab . Why do you think all fire engines have safety relief valves fitted into the top of there water tanks ? It’s to stop surge in the event of an accident and the tank and contents coming into the crew cab area .
An un baffled tank even when 95% full will still will cause surge and can cause a vehicle to swerve as can road camber , have you ever driven anything with an un baffled tank like a water carrier or milk tanker ? If you have you would know this it a fact .
-
1 . The carriage of goods act has different categories of loads .
Show me.
-
2. Thatcham stated that a liquid load should not be against a bulk head as it will transfer the inertia through it causing crush injury’s to the occupants , why do you think all type approved crash tested systems have a gap between tank and bulkhead .
Show me.
-
3. Yes they are an I dependant testing agency recognised by insurance companies for many different test and they aren’t affiliated with any company so have no vested interest in one firm over another
So show me where 'Thatcham say....' as opposed to the producing results of their paid for tests ?
-
4. Yes I do it costs tens of thousands of pounds or it did when two of the main crash tested systems had it done Craig mawlam did tell me how much it cost years ago but can’t remember the exact figure .
I think you are missing the whole point of having a gap between the tank and bulkhead the frame around the tank is designed to bend in an impact the tank ruptures and if a lid is fitted the water goes up to the roof of the van taking the inertia up not forward into the bulkhead and then the cab . Why do you think all fire engines have safety relief valves fitted into the top of there water tanks ? It’s to stop surge in the event of an accident and the tank and contents coming into the crew cab area .
An un baffled tank even when 95% full will still will cause surge and can cause a vehicle to swerve as can road camber , have you ever driven anything with an un baffled tank like a water carrier or milk tanker ? If you have you would know this it a fact .
You aint gonna believe this mate, but its true. I hold a CE licence since the 90's. In a previous life i have driven / drove ? ;D
Milk tankers, Mollases tankers, sugar tankers and food oil tankers. Actually the food oil tankers was with Abbey Tanks and we did do Orange juice and Apple juice too. Mostly drove artics, but i did do a lot of 8 wheeler work on molasses with multi compartments for smaller niche deliveries of diffent (molasses) products to smaller farms as opposed to mills etc...
So yes i know about this stuff first hand, and i'm not trying to be rude, but i know its gonna come across like that ... but anyway...... i wasn't sat in the back of a fire engine wondering how it all works. I've driven the things, and everything in between thats relevant to our job. Small vans , 350 litrers.. tranny vans IBC in back etc.......
-
1 . The carriage of goods act has different categories of loads .
Show me.
Look it up for yourself Ime not wet nursing you and ime not interested in getting in to a long argument I stand by what I have said
-
1 . The carriage of goods act has different categories of loads .
Show me.
Look it up for yourself Ime not wet nursing you and ime not interested in getting in to a long argument I stand by what I have said
I understand, ones can make their own mind up based upon the truth if they should search it out and try to figure out who to believe ;D
-
4. Yes I do it costs tens of thousands of pounds or it did when two of the main crash tested systems had it done Craig mawlam did tell me how much it cost years ago but can’t remember the exact figure .
I think you are missing the whole point of having a gap between the tank and bulkhead the frame around the tank is designed to bend in an impact the tank ruptures and if a lid is fitted the water goes up to the roof of the van taking the inertia up not forward into the bulkhead and then the cab . Why do you think all fire engines have safety relief valves fitted into the top of there water tanks ? It’s to stop surge in the event of an accident and the tank and contents coming into the crew cab area .
An un baffled tank even when 95% full will still will cause surge and can cause a vehicle to swerve as can road camber , have you ever driven anything with an un baffled tank like a water carrier or milk tanker ? If you have you would know this it a fact .
You aint gonna believe this mate, but its true. I hold a CE licence since the 90's. In a previous life i have driven / drove ? ;D
Milk tankers, Mollases tankers, sugar tankers and food oil tankers. Actually the food oil tankers was with Abbey Tanks and we did do Orange juice and Apple juice too. Mostly drove artics, but i did do a lot of 8 wheeler work on molasses with multi compartments for smaller niche deliveries of diffent (molasses) products to smaller farms as opposed to mills etc...
So yes i know about this stuff first hand, and i'm not trying to be rude, but i know its gonna come across like that ... but anyway...... i wasn't sat in the back of a fire engine wondering how it all works. I've driven the things, and everything in between thats relevant to our job. Small vans , 350 litrers.. tranny vans IBC in back etc.......
So as I said you will understand how a liquid load in an un baffled tank can cause surge and cause a vehicle to become unstable and drift across a road
-
1 . The carriage of goods act has different categories of loads .
Show me.
Look it up for yourself Ime not wet nursing you and ime not interested in getting in to a long argument I stand by what I have said
Oh, come on splash. You can't get this deep and not back it up?🤔
-
4. Yes I do it costs tens of thousands of pounds or it did when two of the main crash tested systems had it done Craig mawlam did tell me how much it cost years ago but can’t remember the exact figure .
I think you are missing the whole point of having a gap between the tank and bulkhead the frame around the tank is designed to bend in an impact the tank ruptures and if a lid is fitted the water goes up to the roof of the van taking the inertia up not forward into the bulkhead and then the cab . Why do you think all fire engines have safety relief valves fitted into the top of there water tanks ? It’s to stop surge in the event of an accident and the tank and contents coming into the crew cab area .
An un baffled tank even when 95% full will still will cause surge and can cause a vehicle to swerve as can road camber , have you ever driven anything with an un baffled tank like a water carrier or milk tanker ? If you have you would know this it a fact .
You aint gonna believe this mate, but its true. I hold a CE licence since the 90's. In a previous life i have driven / drove ? ;D
Milk tankers, Mollases tankers, sugar tankers and food oil tankers. Actually the food oil tankers was with Abbey Tanks and we did do Orange juice and Apple juice too. Mostly drove artics, but i did do a lot of 8 wheeler work on molasses with multi compartments for smaller niche deliveries of diffent (molasses) products to smaller farms as opposed to mills etc...
So yes i know about this stuff first hand, and i'm not trying to be rude, but i know its gonna come across like that ... but anyway...... i wasn't sat in the back of a fire engine wondering how it all works. I've driven the things, and everything in between thats relevant to our job. Small vans , 350 litrers.. tranny vans IBC in back etc.......
Have you ever driven a Porsche? Asking for a friend :)
-
Have you ever driven a Porsche? Asking for a friend :)
I havn't. But based on you and what you say.... i don't think you have either. I know this because you would of moaned your arse off about the price of it. Thats just a guess and i'm well prepared to be wrong.
-
4. Yes I do it costs tens of thousands of pounds or it did when two of the main crash tested systems had it done Craig mawlam did tell me how much it cost years ago but can’t remember the exact figure .
I think you are missing the whole point of having a gap between the tank and bulkhead the frame around the tank is designed to bend in an impact the tank ruptures and if a lid is fitted the water goes up to the roof of the van taking the inertia up not forward into the bulkhead and then the cab . Why do you think all fire engines have safety relief valves fitted into the top of there water tanks ? It’s to stop surge in the event of an accident and the tank and contents coming into the crew cab area .
An un baffled tank even when 95% full will still will cause surge and can cause a vehicle to swerve as can road camber , have you ever driven anything with an un baffled tank like a water carrier or milk tanker ? If you have you would know this it a fact .
You aint gonna believe this mate, but its true. I hold a CE licence since the 90's. In a previous life i have driven / drove ? ;D
Milk tankers, Mollases tankers, sugar tankers and food oil tankers. Actually the food oil tankers was with Abbey Tanks and we did do Orange juice and Apple juice too. Mostly drove artics, but i did do a lot of 8 wheeler work on molasses with multi compartments for smaller niche deliveries of diffent (molasses) products to smaller farms as opposed to mills etc...
So yes i know about this stuff first hand, and i'm not trying to be rude, but i know its gonna come across like that ... but anyway...... i wasn't sat in the back of a fire engine wondering how it all works. I've driven the things, and everything in between thats relevant to our job. Small vans , 350 litrers.. tranny vans IBC in back etc.......
So as I said you will understand how a liquid load in an un baffled tank can cause surge and cause a vehicle to become unstable and drift across a road
No, not at all. Quite the opposite infact. And you're now jogging my memory.......
I also drove for Tate and Lyles (liquid sugar) . They done and still do a 'one pot' tanker 40 foot long. No baffles. Why no baffles ?
Well two reasons.. one they didn't half fill or empty it. It was filled and then emptied. So a full tank wouldn't need a baffle, but also cleaning it.... how would you clean a food tank with baffles ?
But more importantly a 44 ton artic would work out about 7 tonne for the tractor, maybe 10 ton for the trailer /tank leaving you 30 odd tonne for the liquid. And the biggest concern over any of this type set up is that a surge of liquid may reduce braking or drive power if weight is surged onto or off the drive axle. They are actually the problems. Not wondering if the vehicle is gonna fall over or stay in the right lane.
-
1 . The carriage of goods act has different categories of loads .
Show me.
Look it up for yourself Ime not wet nursing you and ime not interested in getting in to a long argument I stand by what I have said
Oh, come on splash. You can't get this deep and not back it up?🤔
Ime not interested in getting into a pointless argument , some will argue black is white that’s there prerogative , but all the information is out there readily available.
-
4. Yes I do it costs tens of thousands of pounds or it did when two of the main crash tested systems had it done Craig mawlam did tell me how much it cost years ago but can’t remember the exact figure .
I think you are missing the whole point of having a gap between the tank and bulkhead the frame around the tank is designed to bend in an impact the tank ruptures and if a lid is fitted the water goes up to the roof of the van taking the inertia up not forward into the bulkhead and then the cab . Why do you think all fire engines have safety relief valves fitted into the top of there water tanks ? It’s to stop surge in the event of an accident and the tank and contents coming into the crew cab area .
An un baffled tank even when 95% full will still will cause surge and can cause a vehicle to swerve as can road camber , have you ever driven anything with an un baffled tank like a water carrier or milk tanker ? If you have you would know this it a fact .
You aint gonna believe this mate, but its true. I hold a CE licence since the 90's. In a previous life i have driven / drove ? ;D
Milk tankers, Mollases tankers, sugar tankers and food oil tankers. Actually the food oil tankers was with Abbey Tanks and we did do Orange juice and Apple juice too. Mostly drove artics, but i did do a lot of 8 wheeler work on molasses with multi compartments for smaller niche deliveries of diffent (molasses) products to smaller farms as opposed to mills etc...
So yes i know about this stuff first hand, and i'm not trying to be rude, but i know its gonna come across like that ... but anyway...... i wasn't sat in the back of a fire engine wondering how it all works. I've driven the things, and everything in between thats relevant to our job. Small vans , 350 litrers.. tranny vans IBC in back etc.......
So as I said you will understand how a liquid load in an un baffled tank can cause surge and cause a vehicle to become unstable and drift across a road
No, not at all. Quite the opposite infact. And you're now jogging my memory.......
I also drove for Tate and Lyles (liquid sugar) . They done and still do a 'one pot' tanker 40 foot long. No baffles. Why no baffles ?
Well two reasons.. one they didn't half fill or empty it. It was filled and then emptied. So a full tank wouldn't need a baffle, but also cleaning it.... how would you clean a food tank with baffles ?
But more importantly a 44 ton artic would work out about 7 tonne for the tractor, maybe 10 ton for the trailer /tank leaving you 30 odd tonne for the liquid. And the biggest concern over any of this type set up is that a surge of liquid may reduce braking or drive power if weight is surged onto or off the drive axle. They are actually the problems. Not wondering if the vehicle is gonna fall over or stay in the right lane.
The milk tankers I drove were 33,000 ltr tanks but we could only carry 25,000 ltr the tanks were un baffled you can’t sterilise them ( CIP) if they are baffled , you used to get a lot of surge quarter to half full was worst for this , exactly the same with the water carriers we have they hold 10,000 ltr but we can only carry 6,000 ltr for the weight limit and they use milk tanks si again un baffled they do have polystyrene floats in the tank to try and reduce surge but it doesn’t stop it .
-
The milk tankers I drove were 33,000 ltr tanks but we could only carry 25,000 ltr the tanks were un baffled you can’t sterilise them ( CIP) if they are baffled , you used to get a lot of surge quarter to half full was worst for this , exactly the same with the water carriers we have they hold 10,000 ltr but we can only carry 6,000 ltr for the weight limit and they use milk tanks si again un baffled they do have polystyrene floats in the tank to try and reduce surge but it doesn’t stop it .
Thats interesting mate. Who did you drive for , what vehicles did you drive with 33,000 litrer tanks? What product was in them etc... ?
*edit.,.. You drove Milk tankers ? From where to where do ya remember ?
-
(http://www.cleanitup.co.uk/smf/1737796234_IMG_3831.jpeg)
-
The milk tankers I drove were 33,000 ltr tanks but we could only carry 25,000 ltr the tanks were un baffled you can’t sterilise them ( CIP) if they are baffled , you used to get a lot of surge quarter to half full was worst for this , exactly the same with the water carriers we have they hold 10,000 ltr but we can only carry 6,000 ltr for the weight limit and they use milk tanks si again un baffled they do have polystyrene floats in the tank to try and reduce surge but it doesn’t stop it .
Thats interesting mate. Who did you drive for , what vehicles did you drive with 33,000 litrer tanks? What product was in them etc... ?
*edit.,.. You drove Milk tankers ? From where to where do ya remember ?
Worked for wincanton transport taking Chanel island milk from st earth Cornwall to Huddersfield, and many other locations around the uk .
Drove a variety of trucks , Volvo , Scania , ERF, tri axel units and trailers some with air lift axels . All there liner trailers were 33,000 ltr tanks , as I said previously liquid milk , also drove curtain siders with powdered milk products .
-
How to calculate the force of a crash?
The impact to your body in a crash is called crash force. Crash force is equal to your body weight multiplied by the speed of the vehicle. If you hold your child while riding in a vehicle, you could crush the child during a crash. In a 30 mph crash, a 100 pound adult becomes a 3,000 pound force against the child.
Does this mean a 800kg load gets multiplied 30 times at a 30mph crash ? If so, then the floor hooks have no chance of taking that load.
Great post and thanks for posting it. 👍
-
Interesting thread this is. My van has a payload of 1400kg, nearly 1.5 tonnes. What sort of cargo can I carry safely that equates to 1.5 tonnes and is strapped to the eye hooks? Is carrying .5 of a tonne of water the most deadly cargo one could carry or is there something else more deadly? Why do manufacturers have payloads so high in a van with just eyelets and a bulk head for protection?
-
Interesting thread this is. My van has a payload of 1400kg, nearly 1.5 tonnes. What sort of cargo can I carry safely that equates to 1.5 tonnes and is strapped to the eye hooks? Is carrying .5 of a tonne of water the most deadly cargo one could carry or is there something else more deadly? Why do manufacturers have payloads so high in a van with just eyelets and a bulk head for protection?
This is a good question and one I haven't an answer to. As I've said earlier, Citroen technical dept couldn't give me an answer when I wanted too know the load ratings on those eye hooks for my customer either. Granted, that was a long time ago.
I fitted a factory bulkhead into my Peugeot Boxer as it's much stronger than the after market ones available. The back of my seat as well as the back of the dual passenger seat is right up against the bulkhead.
So any deformation of the bulkhead by the load will push the passenger and driver forward. The seatbelts then do their job both positively and negatively. Then the drivers airbag becomes another problem in this case.
Citroen's answer to get a local reputable body builder to fit heavy duty load securing rails for heavy loads was their safe answer. I past that onto my customer.
Over the years I've seen many vans with a plywood bulkhead. It's there to stop load with sharp corners from tearing the material of the backs of the seats. When I purchased my van second hand, that's what it had.
-
Think about it. The report said that the webbing straps were holding the tank set-up through its holes. It was an IBC tank. The report said there was most of the weight above the holes.
An IBC tank doesn't have holes. The only holes are in its base.
If the straps went through the holes in its base then the tank only sits on this held by the typically flimsy cage and its own weight. Therefore a 90% full tank ripped off of its base and the makeshift bulkhead wasn't strong enough.
"Although the straps would prevent the base of the tank moving forward during this collision there is a lot of weight above that point.
"That tank was allowed to move."
Now to loading hooks.
My old 2006 Doblo van with a 750kg payload had six small D ring loading hooks in to what looked like captive nuts in the floor.
My current Hyundai iload with a 1070kg payload had 8 much larger D-rings and (3 times the size of the doblo) captive nuts. (I don't use these - I have a 110mm x 110mm steel angle across the floor at the back of my tank as part of it's frame - secured to plates under the floor and chassis members held by 6 x 16mm high tensile bolts.)