[stuart mc]

I don't need to know if ratchet straps are safe or not, just if it is a legal way to carry water

[Window Washers]

I don't need to know if ratchet straps are safe or not, just if it is a legal way to carry water

so if it was legal yet dangerous this would not bother you ?

[stuart mc]

I don't need to know if ratchet straps are safe or not, just if it is a legal way to carry water

so if it was legal yet dangerous this would not bother you ?

every thing we do in life is dangerous, but as long as we abide within the law at least we can't be prosecuted, of course if I found out it was dangerous I would limit the probability of it happening, but others have already asked the question, so I specifically want to know if it is legal or not, the safety aspect will be answered anyway

[Perfect Windows]

I don't need to know if ratchet straps are safe or not, just if it is a legal way to carry water

so if it was legal yet dangerous this would not bother you ?

every thing we do in life is dangerous, but as long as we abide within the law at least we can't be prosecuted, of course if I found out it was dangerous I would limit the probability of it happening, but others have already asked the question, so I specifically want to know if it is legal or not, the safety aspect will be answered anyway

If you're only worried about legal responsibility and you're not employing someone then why not just bung an IBC loose in the back?

You'll only really risk prosecution if you get killed, so it won't matter.

[Nick Wareham]

The main difference between the concrete block crash-test (such as Ionics used) and HyGe test sled that we used is that the concrete block test utilises the crumple energy absorbing zone on the front of the van

You seem to forget that Ionics also did the sled test at 31mph (and passed it) AS WELL AS the crashing into the concrete block test.

http://www.ionicsystems.com/english/crash_testing_development_tests.html

[Alex Gardiner]

The main difference between the concrete block crash-test (such as Ionics used) and HyGe test sled that we used is that the concrete block test utilises the crumple energy absorbing zone on the front of the van

You seem to forget that Ionics also did the hyper-g sled test at 31mph (and 3 other as well) AS WELL AS the concrete block test.

http://www.ionicsystems.com/english/crash_testing_development_tests.html

Hi Nick

I was pointing out the difference between a concrete block test, such as that used by Ionics, and the HyGe sled testing. You are right though that it is easy to overlook the HyGe sled testing that Ionics did as they tend to focus on and promote the concrete block test on their website and literature. To be honest for pure testing purposes if you have done the HyGe sled test then you do not really need to carry out the concrete block test - although the latter test does look more spectacular in video form.

The concrete block test does help though to impact on clients' minds the destructive forces that be wreaked on van and contents at just 31mph - which has to be a good thing.

[James Leet]

How safe do you think you would be in a 60mph crash with no tank at all?

I am still here typying thank god, I had a head on at 60 mph with no warning what so ever. I also had 2 years of physio and pain killers and a knackered back for the trouble ( the air bags didnt go off either ), I love the way your trying to rubbish an honest question are you becoming a troll ?

Mira do their test from 30mph to a dead stop, and I mean a dead stop. I think it's asking a lot to expect six hundred litres or more to not move at that 60mph speed. The van alone is most likely to be pretty much destroyed at that speed and a dead stop.
Ask Mira - that's what the question is all about.
I'm not rubbishing the question I'm asking a question. Unfortunately some have trouble reading still.
Phone me and I'll see if I can sort your problem out Dude.


As far as I can make out crash tests on empty vans are performed at around 30 mph to get the safety ratings. If that is the case then tests at double that speed would most likely be catastrophic maybe Mira have tested vans at those kind of speeds?

i cant call you as you hide behind a fake name  

So your name is really Window Washers  : : :

[Window Washers]

How safe do you think you would be in a 60mph crash with no tank at all?

I am still here typying thank god, I had a head on at 60 mph with no warning what so ever. I also had 2 years of physio and pain killers and a knackered back for the trouble ( the air bags didnt go off either ), I love the way your trying to rubbish an honest question are you becoming a troll ?

Mira do their test from 30mph to a dead stop, and I mean a dead stop. I think it's asking a lot to expect six hundred litres or more to not move at that 60mph speed. The van alone is most likely to be pretty much destroyed at that speed and a dead stop.
Ask Mira - that's what the question is all about.
I'm not rubbishing the question I'm asking a question. Unfortunately some have trouble reading still.
Phone me and I'll see if I can sort your problem out Dude.


As far as I can make out crash tests on empty vans are performed at around 30 mph to get the safety ratings. If that is the case then tests at double that speed would most likely be catastrophic maybe Mira have tested vans at those kind of speeds?

i cant call you as you hide behind a fake name  

So your name is really Window Washers  : : :

yep its my business name, your welcome to check out what we do 

[stuart mc]

I don't need to know if ratchet straps are safe or not, just if it is a legal way to carry water

so if it was legal yet dangerous this would not bother you ?

every thing we do in life is dangerous, but as long as we abide within the law at least we can't be prosecuted, of course if I found out it was dangerous I would limit the probability of it happening, but others have already asked the question, so I specifically want to know if it is legal or not, the safety aspect will be answered anyway

If you're only worried about legal responsibility and you're not employing someone then why not just bung an IBC loose in the back?

You'll only really risk prosecution if you get killed, so it won't matter.

because that would be pure stupidity and illegal for not securing your load

[mikecam]

There was a lot of interesting stuff coming out in the topic I opened on crash testing. I have MIRA waiting to take your questions on crash testing. What do you want to ask, this is your chance to check your safety

The name MIRA (Motor Industry Research Association) sounds pretty immpressive. Do they actually do any 'research', if so have they done any on fluid tanks in vans and is it published anywhere?

[Lee Burbidge]

Might be worth asking MIRA if a half-full tank will indeed "slosh".  My guess is that it wouldn't; I think accidents are too quick, e.g. 0.07 seconds (for evidence, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMl-WQ5XkMI from impact to stop = 0.07 seconds or so).

My intuition would say that in 0.07 seconds, there will be minimal sloshing during the deceleration phase.  I'd suspect the weight of water in the tank will behave like the same mass of bricks and just hurtle straight forward.  I may well be wrong, but could the guys at MIRA confirm or deny that?


Also, if a load strap is rated at 5T, does that mean you can hook a 5T weight straight onto it and it'll support it, or does it mean that if you gradually increase the weight to 5T it'll support it?  Have they done crash tests on loads of any kind supported by ratchet straps?  What were the results?

What impulse can a typical bulkhead withstand?


Do they have data on the distribution of accident speeds on UK roads (are 60mph accidents 1% or 50% of accidents)?

Vin

No probs Vin. Alex, thanks for the info ( way ahead of my email to ya lol   we can discuss more )

[Dave Willis]

Something else that's occurred to me: if you employ and your employee falls off your ladder due to say a damaged rung 
or poor training or nobody footing the ladder, we all know that it's highly likely the employer is going to get  sued at least and maybe prosecuted.
Now, if you send your employee out in a van with no bulkhead and a 1000l ibc tank secured with battons fibreglassed to the floor or whatever and the load shifts .............. what happens then, are you as an employer still liable?

Following on from this I can see in the future that systems will surely have to be approved and crash tested to get insurance and employee cover? I don't suppose builders have a problem though?

What do you think?

[Lee Burbidge]

Something else that's occurred to me: if you employ and your employee falls off your ladder due to say a damaged rung 
or poor training or nobody footing the ladder, we all know that it's highly likely the employer is going to get  sued at least and maybe prosecuted.
Now, if you send your employee out in a van with no bulkhead and a 1000l ibc tank secured with battons fibreglassed to the floor or whatever and the load shifts .............. what happens then, are you as an employer still liable?

Following on from this I can see in the future that systems will surely have to be approved and crash tested to get insurance and employee cover? I don't suppose builders have a problem though?

What do you think?

I think laws work on given examples in terms of previous successful cases. If an employee has a crash with a non crash tested system or poorly fitted system and is injured, given that safer means of securing said systems are available on the market the employer will suffer a degree of liability ( BTW Im no lawyer )

[mikecam]

 

If an employee has a crash with a non crash tested system or poorly fitted system and is injured, given that safer means of securing said systems are available on the market the employer will suffer a degree of liability ( BTW Im no lawyer )

None of the current road, employer and equipment legislation that could be applied to the
restraint of cargo on vehicles makes any specific provision concerning the safe restraint of
cargo under accident conditions

Advice is..........
Practical limitations exist in adequately restraining cargo with a single mass greater than
approximately 50kg. If cargo with a single mass greater than 50kg needs to be carried in a
vehicle then a purpose designed engineered solution will be needed to adequately restrain this
mass of cargo under R17 crash loading conditions. This would include the carrying of large
water tanks or generators positioned on or in vehicles.

Thats from a report by TRL for the FTA
Source..............

http://www.fta.co.uk/export/sites/fta/_galleries/downloads/loading_of_vehicles/technical_reference_on_cargo_restraint.pdf

Whether or not the current American seatbelt regulation   (AKA Ionics crash test FMVSS-208 accreditation) fits the bill for 'R17 crash loading conditions' i've no idea. I'm no lawyer either but i couldn't see an employer having any liability for a 50 mph crash if something has only been tested at 30 mph even though there is no requirement to do so?

[Ian Lancaster]

Reading between the lines it seems to me that MIRA accept that any crash at speeds in excess of 30mph will result in total destruction of the vehicle and non-preventable injury/death of persons in the path of the dislodged cargo.

They therefore seem to be concentrating on minimising the effect of crashes up to 30mph which presumably they regard as survivable.

In other words, don't worry about crashing at over 30mph, you're probably going to be dead.

Up to 30mph if your tank etc is secure, you might survive.  BUT IT STILL BOILS DOWN TO "HOW WELL IS YOUR TANK SECURED TO THE CHASSIS?"

If the tank and chassis are in effect one solid unit, then the tank is safe but only up to the point where the chassis fails.  So in reality the limiting factor is the quality and strength of the chassis.

We realised this a long time ago and so designed our fixings using angle steel across the vehicle cargo bed and secured with 12mm HT bolts passing down each side of the 'fore and aft' main chassis members with a short length of angle steel across the underside of the member to form a "U" bolt around the chassis.  With the upright web of the angle steel drilled to accept the claws of as many 5ton ratchet straps as we can fit in, we believe this to achieve the 'one solid unit' as above and therefore as safe as it is possible to be. 

Having read Alex's report that the main movement of the tank is likely to be horizontally forward, we now also incorporate a further angle steel braced across the front of the cargo space and bolted to the vertical members forming the support around the side and roof of the driver's cab.  This steel is positioned so that it bears against the front of the tank approximately half way up.

As the materials we use are far thicker and stronger than any of the chassis, then the only way this can fail is when the limit of the chassis is exceeded and the vehicle is destroyed.

Obviously we haven't had this crash tested but we have complete confidence in it within the limits of the strength of the vehicle itself.

[Dave Willis]

What bothers me with strapping (and this could be one for Mira) is that the angles for strapping loads are all wrong, the straps are always ninety degrees to fit around the tank. On any information I've managed to find, all strapped loads should be strapped with much lower angles. Maybe Mira could crash test with straps? Give it to some apprentices with a few scrap Transits to test out and keep the costs down

[Ian Lancaster]

I would agree that the straps could be a weak point in our system.  With our fixing arrangement it wouldn't be too difficult to engineer steel fixings over the tank and bolted to the angle steel.

[mikecam]

Maybe Mira could crash test with straps? Give it to some apprentices with a few scrap Transits to test out and keep the costs down

They're a commercial profit making establishment. They'll test for whoever pays them. I wouldn;t hold your breath waiting for them to test things for the general well being and saftey of us all as a matter of course. I'm suprised Wydale have never delved into this as its mostly their tanks that get used for mobile use.