Over the years I have trained and assessed many operatives on telescopic handler, or Variable Reach Trucks, VRTs, as they are sometimes called. After slips, trips, and falls and working at heights, telescopic handler accidents are increasing at an unacceptable level.
Statistics show that there has been more fatalities associated with the VRT than with quick hitches, in the last 5 years, which gives a good indicator as to the seriousness of the situation. These statistics are those we know about and reported through RIDDOR, but what of the dangerous occurrences and near misses that are deliberately kept quiet by contractors?
In my geographical area I regularly witness VRTs on the move on site and the public highway, with booms raised at approximately 45 degrees. To those not working closely with VRTs the latter potential hazard opens up the possibility of lateral and longitudinal instability with a raised centre of gravity.
Why do so many operators on construction sites, and farmworkers in an agricultural environment, opt for this preferred hazardous mode of travel with the boom raised? The main reason is usually that they claim they cannot see enough on the offside of the machine boom and raise the boom section to facilitate greater all round visibility.
Though manufacturers have worked long and hard to alleviate this danger with, "low profile booms," convex mirrors and cameras the operators still disregard HSE's "Safety in Working with Lift Trucks, HSG6, page 39, paragraph 97 which states, "When travelling on public roads, attachments and loads should be carried in such a way that they do not present a hazard to other road users. The boom should be in the lowest practicable position."
Contractors appear oblivious to these dangers, not only on site, but also when the VRT is despatched on the public highway, within the immediate vicinity of the site works area. The CITB's CPCS card scheme has attempted to highlight the need for VRT operators to be more aware of the Road Traffic Act and how it applies to the movement of forklifts.
This is an admirable concept though unfortunately their research got it hopelessly wrong and their question bank, and the answers, are inappropriate to UK construction site situations for VRTs and other items of plant.
Are there statistics for fatalities / injuries relating to telehandlers when they're on the move?
I agree that you often see the telehandlers being driven in a potentially hazardous fashion, though I would say there are other abuses of telehandlers that are more common - use of the telehandler basket for lifting people, or simple overloading of the basket.
Unfortunately they are seen (wrongly) as a versatile piece of machinery - part transport, part access, part materials lifting - which is why the abuses occur.
Buy a pivot steer, you have 100% all round vision and can easily see the furthest points of handler/attatchment whith the boom no more than 6" off the ground. And the excuse of carrying the boom in the air to keep dangerous points (e.g forks) out the way shouldn't wash, take them off and put them in a bucket!!!
Sorry, I know pivot steers have no place in the construction industry but they are a viable alternative in Agriculture and this issue of drivers charging round with booms raised is a pet hate of mine and makes me fume every time you see it. Yes on rigid machines (especially older ones) visability to the off side is poor but thats no excuse, a good operator should have a 6th sense of the extremities of his machine, and in the absolute worst case carry the boom just high enough to see the off side wide angle mirrors.
On the issue of man baskets, is their use something that is being frowned upon within construction? As HSE have sort of steered the Ag industry towards their (proper) use for high access.
Barry08 and Bogtrotter make some very useful observations. I think "Construction" could learn much from "Agriculture" particularly in the selection of equipment.
Although my main theme was, "travelling with raised booms" the greater number of casualties/fatalities with VRTs is when they are in collision with ground workers in close proximity to the forklift operation. While the VRT might be loaded down with technology, cameras, mirrors and object detection these 21st Century settings sometimes lend themselves to operators wedged in the seat, and reluctant to leave their state of the art, cabs.
Much the same as the 360 and the quick hitch problems, lazy and indifferent operators who have not received regulated and accredited training. Organisations such as Spillards have done sterling work, over the years, on a wide range of equipments, in an attempt to improve, all round awareness.
In the last few years many have been convinced that "convex" mirrors offer the solution but for me I personally have a great deal of difficulty judging distance through a convex lens. Likewise there are others who are uncomfortable looking "forward into a camera, to establish what is under way, "behind."
Interestingly I was sub contracted to the Environment Agency today for Slinger Signaller training and the lifting facility was a brand new Merlo VRT with a crane attachment, (4,500kg), capability at close radius without stabilisers. Lovely machine, intelligent candidates, all test certs in place, but much to ponder on with the perceived stability hazards on my risk assessment.
Let's try and get a few more involved in the debate, both from Construction and Agriculture.
Regarding, Bogtrotter's "man baskets" in construction it should be the exception rather than the rule that persons are lifted by that means.
Although lifting of persons is generally achieved by either Passenger Hoists or MEWPs there are occasions when the Telescopic Handler, fitted with a Man basket, is the only safe means of rescuing injured/sick persons from inaccessible locations. Open cast sites in South Wales have trained and utilised this means of rescue very successfully.
The forseeability of risk is "high" and much attention must be paid to detail on the Telehandlers allocated to these tasks. Tilt mechanism locked out, markings to indicate SWL, 6 monthly thorough test and examination, basket effectively secured to the forks/carriage, adequate edge protection, caged off to protect occupants, appropriately de rated SWL and the operator to be thoroughly trained in the use of this attachment.
Although the frequency of thorough test and examination for the Telehandler is 12 months it is sensible to reduce this to 6 months, in line with the man basket.
Thanks Sustainer, seems that the construction side of things is a couple of steps ahead of us with regards to use of baskets then. Think we have mainly been encouraged to use them as they are many many times safer than the alternatives that were being used (e.g buckets, ladders, pallets on forks and some other unbelievable methods of high access) but I expect it will only be time before their use is scrutenised and certain criteria for both basket and machine are introduced.
New baskets are being marketed as HSE approved for tractor/handler use (which I suppose is a sensible option considering location and terrain encountered on farm and the level of work not justifying investment in specialist access equipment). Most new machines do have tilt/crowd lock and visable load montiors that should make basket work safer but at the end of the day its down to the condition of the machine and more importantly the person sat in the seat and their level of competance and common sense.
Going back to the origonal issue of travelling with raised booms, if the stats ever added up enough to show that there was a significant number of accidents caused by this practise, I couldn't ever see it happening, but all manufacturers would need to do would be to fit machines with a speed lock when the boom was raised above a certain height. I cant think of any reason for travelling at speed with a raised boom, anyone???
Before i started on machines full time i worked for a subbie to John F Hunt Demolition as a Top Man!
Every job i did was brand new and experimental because no two jobs are the same!
We used to get all kinds of new toys and were pretty much treated like guinea pigs!
Nothing has changed appart from the work experience and process of new skins!
20 years ago an experienced foreman who knew the person decided who did what!
Now we have an NVQ system my dog could pass that lets every nutter on the planet with £400 in his pocket work a machine!!
We seem to have lost the skill to take on experimental toys and whinge about everything!
In 1985 i was groomed into this job from a labourer and now i can drive and fix anything with a diesel engine in it!
The nearest thing i have had to an accident is a burst pipe that squirted a labourers boots with hydraulic oil.
Look at the engineering background of this country!
We are naturally born with this aptitude!
What happened that turned us all into fairy's?
People like Brunnell and Fred Dibnah must be turning in their graves!
If we keep going on like this our CPCS will come with a years supply of pampers!
The problem is that plant operation isn't seen as a 'profession' by the public at large and pay is generally not great. This means that schools and parents steer kids towards being almost anything but a plant operator and those who do drive machines usually want to move on in their career to management, site supervision etc for more cudos and a bigger pay check.
Unless we value and reward skilled operators, most will move on and will be replaced by less experienced newcomers. So taken as a whole the level of skill across the industry appears lower than that of many of individuals. The way to get and keep good opearors is to train them well, pay them a decent wage and respect the skill they have.