OOPS

S

Smiffy

Well-known member
How the fk did they drop that in there? Must have not been chained on and a brain dead driver.

Judging by the half dropped ramp and the smashed up tree I reckon he has cut the corner and caught the paver on a substantial enough part of tree that the paver stayed still and the lorry kept going
 
GazCro

GazCro

Well-known member
Does look like side of road is fu**ed a fair way before it hit the tree, whether gone off a way back for whatever reason then caught tree
 
craig

craig

Well-known member
That type of trailer is more than likely a self tracking rear steer, so turned the way it is, would fit with the angle of the trailer while travelling forward at an angle.
The is 1 broken chain hanging off the side of the trailer.
the verge is chewed from just in front of the police car, I would say, its gone a bit wide on the corner, the units pulled out, and the trailer didn't, the tree and culvert did the damage.
 
Left hooker

Left hooker

Well-known member
Druid want another boat engine Conrod 🤣🤣🤣

FB_IMG_1668888775355.jpg
 
S

Smiffy

Well-known member
View attachment 41508View attachment 41509View attachment 41510
I keep seeing lots of people moving tarmac kit on 4 axle lowloaders & I always say why aren’t vosa tugging them for being over weight because none of the moves are notified & a divisible load

I know they are running bent but I still find it hilarious all the comments saying how dangerous it is being overweight. When in reality the setup is more than capable of handling the weight. Infact it is deemed safe for that setup to carry another 20 odd tonnes. And in reality it is only overweight as it doesn't meet the correct criteria on that day to run over 44t. Yes it's naughty and shouldn't be accepted but it's not exactly dangerous.
It's the same when people complain about tippers being overweight and dangerous when an identical chassis carrying a volumetric mixer is deemed to be safe at a higher weight than an identical chassis carrying mud.

Dodgy in a legal sense yes and unfair on those playing the game properly. But if the equipment is all running within its design then how can it be dangerous.
 
GazCro

GazCro

Well-known member
I know they are running bent but I still find it hilarious all the comments saying how dangerous it is being overweight. When in reality the setup is more than capable of handling the weight. Infact it is deemed safe for that setup to carry another 20 odd tonnes. And in reality it is only overweight as it doesn't meet the correct criteria on that day to run over 44t. Yes it's naughty and shouldn't be accepted but it's not exactly dangerous.
It's the same when people complain about tippers being overweight and dangerous when an identical chassis carrying a volumetric mixer is deemed to be safe at a higher weight than an identical chassis carrying mud.

Dodgy in a legal sense yes and unfair on those playing the game properly. But if the equipment is all running within its design then how can it be dangerous.
So looking at it another way if they used a lighter weight trailer could they have been less overweight and got off lighter. Would the keyboard warriors have thought that safer?
 
S

Smiffy

Well-known member
Perhaps the operator could justify their actions by saying we're in a climate emergency and he was try so save fuel, thus saving the planet.
this is a very good point. Allowing b doubles for RDC work would reduce the lorries on that particular work by 50%
Likewise allowing 5 axle 40t tippers like the Irish have would reduce tippers by 25%.
The state of the roads can't be an argument as I cannot see the Irish roads being much difference to ours. And we allow 40t on 5 axle arctics.
 
CPS

CPS

Well-known member
I know they are running bent but I still find it hilarious all the comments saying how dangerous it is being overweight. When in reality the setup is more than capable of handling the weight. Infact it is deemed safe for that setup to carry another 20 odd tonnes. And in reality it is only overweight as it doesn't meet the correct criteria on that day to run over 44t. Yes it's naughty and shouldn't be accepted but it's not exactly dangerous.
It's the same when people complain about tippers being overweight and dangerous when an identical chassis carrying a volumetric mixer is deemed to be safe at a higher weight than an identical chassis carrying mud.

Dodgy in a legal sense yes and unfair on those playing the game properly. But if the equipment is all running within its design then how can it be dangerous.
Totally agree with this.

OK so he had a dodgy tire which won't help his case... and most like drew the attention his way.

But there is nothing unsafe about that load, its well chained and the trailer and truck are more than capable to take the load.... the sad fact is, it might have been legal on a 44ton truck with tri axle trailer:mad:

Had this conversation with a driver for a well known heavy haulage company, he was delivering steel to us. They take crushers and screeners out from here to Southampton weekly, they sometimes back load with steel plate to the same companies. With a double drive unit and 5 axle trailer he was only legal to carry 15 tons off plate on the way back.... even though on the way out he was perfectly legal to carry a 50 ton crusher! its just stupid! the unit and trailer was 10 time safer than some of the light weight units you see running about trying to get maximum payload.

All the talk from the government about climate change and environmental concerns and they are saying that this should have been moved on 2 or more loads!! what a bunch of retarded twats!
 
CPS

CPS

Well-known member
this is a very good point. Allowing b doubles for RDC work would reduce the lorries on that particular work by 50%
There is a company in Ireland that operates B double units......... legally I might add😁

They are only permitted to operate on a specific route, between Dublin and Limerick I think. Ever seen them @Conor I passed one on the motorway last year heading towards limerick
 
Lancs Lad

Lancs Lad

Well-known member
Totally agree with this.

OK so he had a dodgy tire which won't help his case... and most like drew the attention his way.

But there is nothing unsafe about that load, its well chained and the trailer and truck are more than capable to take the load.... the sad fact is, it might have been legal on a 44ton truck with tri axle trailer:mad:

Had this conversation with a driver for a well known heavy haulage company, he was delivering steel to us. They take crushers and screeners out from here to Southampton weekly, they sometimes back load with steel plate to the same companies. With a double drive unit and 5 axle trailer he was only legal to carry 15 tons off plate on the way back.... even though on the way out he was perfectly legal to carry a 50 ton crusher! its just stupid! the unit and trailer was 10 time safer than some of the light weight units you see running about trying to get maximum payload.

All the talk from the government about climate change and environmental concerns and they are saying that this should have been moved on 2 or more loads!! what a bunch of retarded twats!
D&E ? See their rigs a lot with crushers etc heading south past us on the 6
 
Top