Red tape is certainly not reducing, and based on recent dealings with State and Federal departments I would suggest that it is fast getting worse.
I clearly recall sitting in a Vehicle Standards meeting where a response to a question on amendment delays, it was stated, “it is policy”. On request a copy of the policy was never provided. Policy is often a rhetoric for too hard, or not interested, not doing that and a few other options for procrastination. Process before progress!
In many aspects of road transport process seems to dominate progress; the can-do approach has been lost.
I recall questioning a mechanic as to what torque he applied when checking to the suspension ‘U-bolts’ of a semi-trailer. He quoted a figure and I queried him, ‘so how did you do that?’ – with the workshop torque wrench! Very interesting, that trailer doesn’t have any ‘U-bolts’, the axles and trailing arms are integrated but paper won’t refuse ink!
The science behind designs and developing bolted connections is complex. In the trucking world bolt torque for specific components is well known. Engine, transmission and differential re-manufacturers are generally religious in using the specified bolt torque on re-assembly, but why doesn’t this same discipline apply to couplings, wheel nuts etc.?
In 2008 the ATA Industry Technical Council released the first edition of the ‘Wheel end security – wheel to hub’ Technical Advisory Procedure (TAP). Whilst this TAP and subsequent editions is somewhat generalised, in summary it seems that there are fewer wheel-offs today than in the period prior to the development of the TAP.
There has recently been some chat regarding mounting bolts on coupling and other critical components coming loose and/or failing. At installation it is paramount that the manufacturers specifications are followed.
Typical bolt torque tolerance on critical connectors may be as much as +/- 10 per cent but it may also be as little as +/- four per cent. Preparations are critical – a lightly oiled thread will provide a substantially different outcome to a dry thread.
If in doubt, ask – determine the manufacturer/supplier specifications. Follow the engineering process for a safety outcome. Manufacturers of tow eyes provide tolerances for in-service wear, but some also provide tolerances for in-service deformation (bending).
If it’s within the manufacturer’s tolerance and there is no evidence of cracks it is okay. If in doubt – replace. Whilst on the subject of couplings and tow eyes, industry experienced a phase of defects and failures of drawbars particularly on dog trailers.
Just like tyres and other components, drawbars are maintenance items and wear and mishaps needs to be addressed. In early 2021 the ATA Industry Technical Council released the first edition of the Drawbar Trailers TAP. This provides guidelines coupling selection and installation, inspection and maintenance specifics, including recommendations on drawbar deformation.
Failure in engineering applications is often the result of fatigue and the sharing of such information provides opportunities for design revisions. Detailed post failure analysis provides the key causal factors and by learning from this history hopefully the same mistake/s are not repeated.
Driver fatigue is more complex. There is considerable reference to road fatalities, and the disproportionate number of fatal accidents in regional areas as compared to urban areas. In accident analysis there seems to be an unending appetite for the big three (fatigue, drugs/alcohol, speed).
Drugs and/or alcohol and speed are choices, be it a poor choice. There is much reference to fatigue and the promoted remedy for fatigue being rest/sleep, no arguments here. But specifically in the driving environment, what conditions cause fatigue?
There seems to be little acknowledgement as to the influence of the actual road surface as a contributory factor to driver fatigue. In discussing the impact of road surface condition with many professional drivers, a common agreement is that rough undulating road conditions are more demanding of the driver than the typical smooth freeway pavements.
I agree with the professional driver’s philosophy. It’s definitely less demanding to be motoring on good smooth pavement than narrow single lane rough roads with broken shoulders. In determining the cause of accidents, how many investigations explore the conditions of the pavement in the 200-500 metres prior to the incident scene and assess factors that the pavement may have contributed to the outcome? Road managers won’t like this because it puts the responsibility on those who are always ready to blame another party.
I don’t know the number of committees that have looked into rest areas in the past 40 years, but the count is at least four in the past 20 years. Process and process but no progress! Then there is access, not only to the road network but to rest facilities. I recently spoke with a driver, a long-term associate, regarding rest areas and facilities.
“We just need well located rest areas, away from the immediate passing traffic with good clean facilities, clean running fresh water and rubbish bins that are regularly emptied,” he said.
“We don’t need architecturally designed dunnies of varying designs in different colours at the many needed locations.”
If its kept simple, there should be more that can be done with the limited dollars.
Whilst on rest areas — who is responsible for emptying the garbage bins located at a rest area? And what’s the legal difference between stopping bays and rest area parking bays?
What’s needed? Well located rest areas, with practical and clean facilities. Let’s address driver fatigue. The cause is known, so address it by reducing the committee process, and progress with the building of the needed facilities.
Yet again, process continues to delay progress and access.
