Front end loader seized, WA.

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Any "workplace" is covered by OH+S and administered by Worksafe.....

If the road is a "workplace", and it can be, then trust me... its covered...

Ahh, no it’s not. At least in a “legal” way.

If a road was considered a workplace, Workcover would investigate truck accidents. They say that it’s up to the police to do so they can wipe their hands from responsibility.

If the roads were “legally” considered a workplace, truck drivers would be able to sue state governments for not maintaining a safe workplace if the road surface contributed to an accident.

Why is it that if a bloke at some roadworks holding a stop sign gets hit by a car, it’s work cover, but if a truck driver is hit while changing a tyre, it’s a police problem?

[aussiblue]

I was surprised that CB 's were specifically exempt per the WA Road Traffic Code:

ROAD TRAFFIC CODE 2000 - REG 265
265 . Use of hand-held mobile phones
(1) On or after 1 July 2001, a driver shall not drive a motor vehicle and use a hand-held mobile phone while the vehicle is moving, or is stationary but not parked.

Points: 3 Modified penalty: 5 PU

(2) In this regulation —
mobile phone does not include a CB radio or any other two-way radio.

from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/w...0113/s265.html

[deesun]

There are two parts to this incident. 1 is the bloke being a fool using the loader whilst driving and disqualified and yapping on the phone and I hope for that he gets the book thrown at him. Now for 2. That is the confiscation which I think is a bit over the top. When Flappist made his first post he failed to distinguish between the two and I doubt would condone No 1.

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

I was surprised that CB 's were specifically exempt per the WA Road Traffic Code:



from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/w...0113/s265.html

Escot vehicles are required by law to inform other heavy vehicle drivers of their with, so that is why there’s an exemption for that.

[aussiblue]

Esco[r]t vehicles are required by law to inform other heavy vehicle drivers of their with, so that is why there’s an exemption for that.

Yes; but given there are hands fee CB accessories you still have to wonder why they are exempt.

eg:
http://www.thunderpole.co.uk/toyocom-ms-5.html
http://www.mic-master.com/

Plus hands free capable CB sets like the Uniden UH015 and UH015SX

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Yes; but given there are hands fee CB accessories you still have to wonder why they are exempt.

eg:
http://www.thunderpole.co.uk/toyocom-ms-5.html
http://www.mic-master.com/

Plus hands free capable CB sets like the Uniden UH015 and UH015SX

FFS, can’t you just accept the umpire's decision. You’re allowed to use a UHF / CB mike, it’s as simple as that.

[fordOwner]

Can someone explain to me why you are allowed to use CB radio in a truck/ute/car... but not a mobile phone??

What is the difference??

The CB is not hands-free, its having a conversation with someone (ie:distracting) and 99% of trucks have one fitted (1% arent working at the moment)...

Its so the police, fire dept', ambulance, SES, or any emergency services can use them.

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by fordOwner

Its so the police, fire dept', ambulance, SES, or any emergency services can use them.

Emergency services are exempt from laws covering mobile communication. The exemption for the UHF mic is for those people who are not in the emergency services.

[aussiblue]

Oh well a world to the head nanny of the nanny state on the dangers of using Cb's while driving would doubtless soon change that.

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Oh well a world to the head nanny of the nanny state on the dangers of using Cb's while driving would doubtless soon change that.

What dangers?

You can actually still operate a vehicle while using a microphone and still be in total control of it, unlike many of the morons who use mobile phones and all of a sudden, 100% of their concentration goes on the phone call instead of their driving. Holding a microphone to your mouth is totally different to holding a bloody phone to your ear.

Also, generally when you speak to someone on a UHF (providing you’re not on a repeater channel) you’re usually not that far away from them so speaking to someone who may well be within your line of sight doesn’t have the same level of distraction as the phone call that just told you that your panel beater’s next door neighbour has died.

You’ve been around for a while, so how many accidents have you seen caused by someone talking on a UHF radio?

[aussiblue]

You’ve been around for a while, so how many accidents have you seen caused by someone talking on a UHF radio?
__________________

None so far which I must admit and compares well with the last 4 accidents I was involved with being people on mobile phones running into the back of me while I have been stopped at red lights, stops signs and intersections.

I have seen just one near miss where a truckie on his mike ran a red light on the Roe Highway near the Orrong Road intersection travelling westward (luckily he was in the other lane or it might have happened to me again). A guy on a Harley motorbike that came out on the green light was nearly cleaned up - he gunned it just in time into the other lane and he was missed by inches. I could sense the trucke wasn't slowing as he approached where I was stopped and as he went whizzing past on my left I could see he was on his CB. The HD driver looked like a outlaw bikie type and he and his mates traveling in convoy were certainly letting the truckie know how they felt about it but I don't know if anything further happened down the road. They were all going too fast for me to legally catch them and I certainly didn't want to get involved.

Of course he may have just been drugged on no-doze, had little sleep, his brakes might have been out or something else other than the CB may have also contributed to his failure to stop.

I must say it is usually pretty hard to see if truckies are on their CB's so who knows what accidents I have seen involving trucks may have involved CB use - not that I have seen many truck accidents either.

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

I could sense the trucke wasn't slowing as he approached where I was stopped and as he went whizzing past on my left I could see he was on his CB. The HD driver looked like a outlaw bikie type.

I think we’re getting a little bit off topic here and no offence, if it was an “outlaw type” motorcycle rider, he was probably trying to hit him.

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Of course he may have just been drugged on no-doze, had little sleep, his brakes might have been out or something else other than the CB may have also contributed to his failure to stop.

We all make mistakes and this bloke obviously made a one, but why do people (yourself included) automatically think that when a truck driver makes a mistake, they’re on drugs? That old argument is well and truly worn out.

Anyway, back on topic…

[aussiblue]

We all make mistakes and this bloke obviously made a one, but why do people (yourself included) automatically think that when a truck driver makes a mistake, they’re on drugs? That old argument is well and truly worn out.

I didn't think that at all at the time; it's just while I was typing it that given the argument that CBs don't cause accidents, it crossed my mind that there could be reasons other than talking on the CB that made him run the red light. And no doze was just one of a several possibilities I mentioned so please don't assume or state that when truckies may a mistake I automatically assume they are on drugs - I don't especially as I have friend and relatives who are or were truckies and to my knowledge never did any of that. But truckies, motorcyclists and car drivers alike we all know that there is a minority out there who are driving under the influence of all sorts of things.

Of course other road users also use CBs so we shouldn't confine this issue to truckies.

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

What dangers?

You can actually still operate a vehicle while using a microphone and still be in total control of it, unlike many of the morons who use mobile phones and all of a sudden, 100% of their concentration goes on the phone call instead of their driving. Holding a microphone to your mouth is totally different to holding a bloody phone to your ear.

Also, generally when you speak to someone on a UHF (providing you’re not on a repeater channel) you’re usually not that far away from them so speaking to someone who may well be within your line of sight doesn’t have the same level of distraction as the phone call that just told you that your panel beater’s next door neighbour has died.

You’ve been around for a while, so how many accidents have you seen caused by someone talking on a UHF radio?

Can't really see the difference myself.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by loftie

Can someone explain to me why you are allowed to use CB radio in a truck/ute/car... but not a mobile phone??

What is the difference??

The CB is not hands-free, its having a conversation with someone (ie:distracting) and 99% of trucks have one fitted (1% arent working at the moment)...

There is none.. if its dangerous for some its dangerous for all..

Originally Posted by mcnews

Can't really see the difference myself.

Me either, it just shows the hypocracy with the laws...

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

but why do people (yourself included) automatically think that when a truck driver makes a mistake, they’re on drugs? That old argument is well and truly worn out.

for the same reason people think that when an attractive celebrity's car gets stolen she must have forgotten where she parked it or crashed it and tried to cover it up





i do not see a problem with cb radios. you do not need to dial a number or take too much effort to use it. as full noise suggested the conversations are different. a cb radio's speaker has generally always been in the dash, not directly into your ear - unlike a handset and some handsfree kits with mobile phones. most people in vehicles do not have major conversations in cb's, it is normally a few short sentences. from my experience there is alot of difference between using a cb and a phone without a handsfree kit

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

for the same reason people think that when an attractive celebrity's car gets stolen she must have forgotten where she parked it or crashed it and tried to cover it up





i do not see a problem with cb radios. you do not need to dial a number or take too much effort to use it. as full noise suggested the conversations are different. a cb radio's speaker has generally always been in the dash, not directly into your ear - unlike a handset and some handsfree kits with mobile phones. most people in vehicles do not have major conversations in cb's, it is normally a few short sentences. from my experience there is alot of difference between using a cb and a phone without a handsfree kit

You can use a mobile in the same way as a CB but on speaker, but the min you hold it in your hands its illegal, how is holding a CB mike in your hand less dangerous than holding a mobile on speaker? The issue with mobiles was the distraction of HOLDING the phone, not the call itself otherwise it would be illegal to use a phone in your car full stop.

The ONLY reason CB's arent illegal too is because emergency services need to use them and if its deemed illegal for motorists to use them it would be pretty hard to defend emergency services workers using them too....

Im not saying its any more dangerous for people to use CB's but its not less dangerous either, its just hypocracy...

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Im not saying its any more dangerous for people to use CB's but its not less dangerous either, its just hypocracy...

it is along time since i have used a cb, but it seemed much easier and less distracting, than picking a phone out of a pocket or console, dialling the number or opening it to answer and then holding it up to your ear

while truck drivers are not perfect, most of them have a lot more potential to use one safely than many drivers have to use a phone. if nothing else, truck drivers seem to have an idea about the damage they can cause if something goes wrong, unlike a huge percentage of car drivers that just drive totally on auto pilot

obviously not all cb's are for truck use only - mine certainly wasn't, but most seem to be and they no doubt help to let them know of traffic conditions and maybe even to get important messages accross. our roads could be much worse without them

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

it is along time since i have used a cb, but it seemed much easier and less distracting, than picking a phone out of a pocket or console, dialling the number or opening it to answer and then holding it up to your ear

while truck drivers are not perfect, most of them have a lot more potential to use one safely than many drivers have to use a phone. if nothing else, truck drivers seem to have an idea about the damage they can cause if something goes wrong, unlike a huge percentage of car drivers that just drive totally on auto pilot

obviously not all cb's are for truck use only - mine certainly wasn't, but most seem to be and they no doubt help to let them know of traffic conditions and maybe even to get important messages accross. our roads could be much worse without them

There are plenty of people out there that are perfectly capable of operating a mobile phone safely too yet not 1 single road rule allows for the ability to differentiate, we're constantly goverened by the lowest common denominator.

Truck drivers are car drivers too, there's no reason to differentiate at all..

It doesnt bother me at all that truck drivers use CB's but the simple fact is its a loop hole left open to cater to emergency service workers, simple as that.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Tony, I know this is a little off topic but it's kinda related....

As you know I drive a Truck, a few weeks ago all drivers received a memo saying that there is now a new law in Vic. Whereby if we (the drivers) get caught for speeding (in any state) not only do we get fined so does the company.

I haven't followed up to see if this is correct yet or when it comes in to effect perhaps one of our friendly Mr Plods in here might know.

We are already speed limited to 100kmh, have Satellite tracking and receive a warning letter if we run off hills at more than 110kmh. I do fail to see how anyone can fine a company for the actions of their drivers hundreds of kilometres away.

I like this idea. Well as long as every time any public servant gets a speeding fine so do each of the politicians...........

[tpintas]

Has anyone worked out how to text on a CB yet?

Has anyone discovered how to have a "private" and in depth conversation on a CB yet?

Has any one discovered how to have a CB conversation with someone who's CB isnt in range yet?

Totally different type of devices.

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

it is along time since i have used a cb, but it seemed much easier and less distracting, than picking a phone out of a pocket or console, dialling the number or opening it to answer and then holding it up to your ear

while truck drivers are not perfect, most of them have a lot more potential to use one safely than many drivers have to use a phone. if nothing else, truck drivers seem to have an idea about the damage they can cause if something goes wrong, unlike a huge percentage of car drivers that just drive totally on auto pilot

obviously not all cb's are for truck use only - mine certainly wasn't, but most seem to be and they no doubt help to let them know of traffic conditions and maybe even to get important messages accross. our roads could be much worse without them

I have always had a UHF/CB in my 4WDs and for sure they are a easier and less distracting than a mobile phone, i like most truck drivers i know have the mike set up so as you don't actually pick it up, you just key it to talk, no different to taking your hand off the wheel to change gears, and if your to busy you just wait....

As far as my Mobile Phone goes, if it's in the car it's turned off....

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Speeding has NOTHING whatsoever to do with OH&S.

I think you meant that companies should ensure their employees are working within OH&S laws.

If Road related incidents were in OH&S jurisdiction the Highways would be classed as a workplace and they're not (not in Oz anyway)

If what you said was even remotely correct every company that employs drivers, be they Taxi, Company Reps, or the Police force would be in court everyday!

Don't recall making a connection between OH&S and speeding, but that aside, I do know that many taxi owners and operators (as opposed to the driver) find themselves in court often, due to the actions of their employees, and I am also sure most people will be aware of the amount of time that misconduct departments of various police forces spend in court either defending or otherwise their "hired drivers"

[flappist]

Originally Posted by zdcol71

Boy, I sometimes think your tally of smily faces must be based on the maxim that if you shout loud enough people will believe what you say, particularly when you use this logic:
"Kids miss a months school, a few houses burn down, a couple of people drown but at least the nasty phone user was stopped." Or the obligatory "nazi", or "conspiracy"
My post was based on the fact that there was nowwhere in the original post that said anyone was "off duty"

So how does impounding a piece of equipment that is being used to do work on a public road (the great northern highway) help the people of Western Australia?

Either the equipment IS NOT replaced thereby causing the job to take longer and therefore causing extra inconvenience to road users and of course costing the tax payers of Western Australia more money OR the equipment IS replaced by something else on a short term contract costing the tax payers of Western Australia more money.

So basically the "hoon" does not lose his personal car as a punitive measure and many other innocent people are punished as collateral damage.

This is what I call bureaucratic dogmatic stupidity.

[aussiblue]

After speaking with the owner of loader, the driver's employer, police issued a notice to surrender the vehicle rather than seizing it immediately as it was being used for major road works. It will be impounded for 28 days

at: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-...nt-end-loader/

Sound reasonable and it will give the owners time to appeal.

[aussiblue]

And we were just copying the Kiwis:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/greymouth/...ectid=10526108

'Boy racer' front-end loader seized

10:18 AM Saturday Aug 9, 2008

Greymouth police have seized a $300,000 front-end loader under boy-racer laws.

The Press newspaper reported today that the 22-tonne loader was being used in Kaiata, just outside Greymouth, last week when it was involved in a random stop by the police.

The operator was then accused of being a disqualified driver, triggering an automatic 28-day impoundment under rules designed to keep boy racers off the roads.

The vehicle's owner, Westroads, then asked the police to release the loader so another operator with a full licence could use it.

The police refused, saying the company, owned by the Westland District Council, had a responsibility to check regularly the status of employee driver's licences.

The newspaper said Westroads was considering challenging the decision in court.

- NZPA

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by flappist

So how does impounding a piece of equipment that is being used to do work on a public road (the great northern highway) help the people of Western Australia?

Either the equipment IS NOT replaced thereby causing the job to take longer and therefore causing extra inconvenience to road users and of course costing the tax payers of Western Australia more money OR the equipment IS replaced by something else on a short term contract costing the tax payers of Western Australia more money.

So basically the "hoon" does not lose his personal car as a punitive measure and many other innocent people are punished as collateral damage.

This is what I call bureaucratic dogmatic stupidity.

Let me say first that despite what you may think, I am not a big fan of impounding cars for the sake of minor indescretions and from all I am hearing, I don't think it is happening as quickly or unfairly as many here would hve us believe(if people are indeed getting there cars impounded because they happen to "spin their wheels on a slick of oil when pulling sedately away from the lights", then I stand corrected)
But to the topic, I would guess that the guy in question was either an owner operator or an employee of a company contracted to do the work. As such the contract or the supply of material and equipment, or the safety management plan of the contractor or any other issue relating to the contract would have very little, if anything at all to do with the taxpayer direct, other than the fact the duration of the works would overrun a pre contracted schedule.That's probably why very few if any councils or main roads depts. actually have any full time crews working on roads anymore. Most of this work is contracted out to private business.
I doubt very much wether any tax payer dollars will be spent to source another vehicle to complete the works in question. More likely the contractor would be contracturally penalised and be forced to foot the bill himself to complete his work under the terms of his contract. As an ironic little twist this could be construed as the government actually sending out a very strong message not to screw with the tax payer dollar.But hey ,all that aside I know the response I will get for saying something like that!

[aussie muscle]

A police spokesman said officers issued a surrender notice for the owner of the front end loader to hand it in to a holding yard within seven days. Once surrendered, will then be impounded for 28 days.
...
police can seize vehicles on the spot for 28 days[/quote]

if that is accurate, has it actually been really "impounded on the spot"?

the only way these 3rd party impounds will be resolved is someone needs to fight it in court. if successful, other judges wont necessarily enforce it either, and the govt will have to change or repeal the law.

[jaydee]

aussie muscle, here in WA they can seize on the spot or serve a surrender notice. Surrender notice is usually for company cars, car yards etc.

[DMXR6T]

Where have we come to. Sure, if a driver is doing the wrong thing then penalise the DRIVER, not the OWNER of the vehicle. Politicians and dumb bureaucrats trying to be seen to be doing "something". If one of my employees “hoons” one of our company vehicles and it is impounded. I and my company are penalised??? No wonder we are moving the business overseas (along with taxes, IR laws, etc.).

What happened to the guilty being punished and the innocent protected. Smacks of big brother, just like revenue, sorry, speed cameras - just get anyone, does not matter if it was the actual driver (and get the MONEY). great, we (the politicians and the bureaucrats) are doing something.

The law has to be fair and seen to be fair. This vehicle theft/seizure is not fair and not seen to be fair. The law also need the respect and cooperation of citizens. This cr*p makes me not respect the law and not cooperate in any way. Just try and get the law to help you if someone breaks into your house and steals your property – takes the police days to turn up, if ever, then nothing. Obviously no revenue!

And another point - I just love the way politicians and bureaucrats claim any reduction in road toll was their work but ignore improvements in vehicle safety.

I vote and will take these things into account. My rant for the day!