AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Visibility for safety

28th January 1977
Page 57
Page 57, 28th January 1977 — Visibility for safety
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

WE hear of so many accidents these days, especially on the radio, that it is all too easy for engineers to adopt an attitude of 'What has to be, will be,' whereas in reality, there are many areas where they can improve the safety of their vehicles, And it is worth bearing in mind that every time an accident is reported on the radio, it is fuel for those that are anti-trucks.

Some areas where safety can be improved have already been covered in this series, and surrounded as he is by legislation of one sort or another, the engineer may wonder what more he can be expected to do, or for that matter why he should bother, if the subject is not covered by legislation.

The first reason for trying to cut accidents, of course, is the cost and disruption they cause to the operator, at a time when he is hard pressed to make money anyway. The other, more difficult to quantify, is the importance of keeping up the public relations image.

Driver's duty

Since many accidents occur in darkness, or when visibility is poor, safety must start with good lamps, and a regular check that all are working properly should be made before every journey.

That should be the driver's duty, but there is little point in his checking them over religiously, if he then proceeds to drive in fog or at dusk without his lamps switched on.

It really is amazing how drivers of cars and trucks one sees driving along in dense fog on their side lamps only. even though the law now requires that headlamps be used when visability is poor.

As this law is worded, it seems to be virtually impossible to enforce, but that is no reason for drivers to press on in fog without their headlamps on, The correct use of lamps is of course the first step in ensuring visibility, and that the vehicle can be seen by others.

Some form of protection is needed to ensure that the rear lamps continue to operate after the driver has reversed clumsily up to a loading bay_ This is really up to the vehicle or trailer designer, who should make certain that the bumper or under-run bumper extends a little way past the lamp lenses. Wire guards can also help.

Obviously, if much damage is done to the rear end of a vehicle, the lamps are almost bound to suffer, but superficial damage should not put the lamps out of action these days.

What about extra lamps? Some Scandinavian operators seem to like to have multiple rear lamps, but it is rare for a British operator to add lamps that are not required by law. After all, he reasons, there are enough lamps, especially on artics, for anyone to see the truck.

That may be the case in good visibility, when the obligatory reflective markers also help, but in the fog, there is a lot to be said for additional lamps.

The so-called fog-guard lamps are certainly beneficial in fog, but like so many safety features, they appear to be more value to the car driver behind than to the truck operator.

Nevertheless, if your vehicles operate much in fog — if they use the M6 and M62 regularly, for example — the addition of a pair of fog-guard lamps must be a good investment.

Incidentally, these can be a bit of a nuisance if they are used in clear conditions, so some form of warning lamp in the cab is worth while.

But none of these lamps is any good if it is inoperative, and too often the driver carries on blissfully in the belief that all is well, when in fact a rear lamp is out of action.

To overcome this problem, a circuit breaker can be installed. If any of the lamps in the circuit is inoperative, a warning lamp cycles on and off until the fault is repaired.

Such a unit is available from Berg, and its use can easily avoid a fatal accident.

Loose nuts

While trucks may proceed on their way in a dangerous state owing to the absence of a rear lamp, they may be stopped for something that doesn't seem too serious.

For example, a GV9 may be issued at a roadside check for an excessively loose half-shaft. Often enough, however, the nuts are soon tightened up, the vehicle gains its GV10 clearance, and off it goes.

In reality, the fitter may not have really solved the problem.

A quick glance at the studs usually gives the clue to the situation, since the chances are that one of them has loosened, and is protruding further from the flange than the others.

Loose studs If that is the case, the tightening of the nuts will not cure the problem at all. Soon afterwards, the stud will loosen .further, and it might eventually strip the thread_

Then, so long as the nuts are loose and this is why the GV9 was issued — the application of power and brakes will cause the holes to elongate.

If a stud has loosened, the only solution is to take out each stud, remove the axle shaft and then refit each stud correctly.

Of course, the chances are that the stud is only loose because someone fitted it too quickly, when the truck was needed back on the road in double quick time, and did not make sure that the stud was in tightly.

Although the inspector is most likely to notice a loose nut on an axle flange, careless assembly of the differential housing or the rear cover of the gearbox is also likely to lead to this trouble, not to mention some studs on the engine.

A GV9 is a very costly result of such a short-cut, but so is the premature failure that would probably have resulted if the vehicle had not been stopped.

In either case, a slower more careful approach will always pay dividends, even if the traffic office is desperate for its vehicle to be back on the road.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus