Truck Driver Killed by his load 4-22-16

What that fails to show is the dunnage that should have a 45 degree cut that makes a cradle for the coil to sit in. Even though small, chains that pull down keep it seated inside the cradle. So now the coil would have to go up and over the edge. Don't have numbers for how much resistance it offers but it has to be something. Place a coil flat with no dunnage and it will roll, in the cradle it would take some amount of force to make it roll. Add a chain pulling straight down, now it takes a lot of force to make it move. Now add 3 chain pulling slightly to the rear and 3 pulling slightly to the front. Good to go then.

 

In my mind's eye, the dunnage... when brought into play by hard deceleration, acts as the new fulcrum...which may change the mechanical advantage ratio somewhat.

For forward resistance, at 45 degrees it would be 1:2 (22.5klbs on 45klbs) of forward energy to "roll" the coil up the dunnage + the downward resistance of the chains...whatever that may be.

I hope I have these numbers right....just quickly figuring in my head.

 

Ideally they should be gut wrapped to cinch them up but that rarely happens.

 

Like this?

 

As far as I'm concerned it's gonna happen no matter how you secure a load of steel. The only thing holding in place is downward force. The all sit on 4x4's. A few bumps here and there and now you have a groove in the wood. Straps have some give and still stay relatively tight. Just 1/64th of an inch groove in the dunage will make any chain loose.

I've had to make a hard stop, not real hard but I was concerned. When I did stop to check things out the chains or straps were on a slight angle indicating the load had indeed moved forward.

 

I wholehearted agree with you about the need for x-chains, bulkheads, cross chains etc. to prevent forward movement. I put chains around and across the front of beam loads and stuff to prevent forward movement. But I do disagree a little bit with your dislike of straps. Straps, with proper edge protection is fine on most loads. And it is impossible to get to chain binders up on the load under tarps and padding to re-tension them in route. With straps, you just have to use more of them, with vertical blocking and edge protectors. I've never had an issue even when I've had to stop harder than I'd have liked to.

 

Well I don't think there's any question that most, if not all of these cab intrusion deaths could be prevented by a different means of securement.
The problem is that...as some have stated... the means to do so would be cost and weight prohibitive...and I agree.
Forgive me, but I also see that as a "Dad did it this way, his dad did it this way" kind of sentiment.
I for one am anti-legislation on most things. Heck, I'm even against helmet laws but...
This will never change if the driver's are suppose to figure out how to make it more safe with the rigging they can afford to carry. It has to be done at the manufacturer / shipper level.
In short, these rolls need to come in a *frame* that can be properly secured and is rated to maintain securement in deceleration at least up to what would kill the driver from the *front* anyway. This frame would reduce the amount of the weight of the roll that could be shipped, and that cost would have to be passed along to the cost of the steel, not to the drivers.

The other alternative is that the shippers modify their forklifts so that these are delivered on their side instead.

Pipes or I-beams need some sort of engineered hard stop at the front. Same deal, it would have to be rated to keep the items in place up to a crash that would likely total the truck from the front.

Simply put, I just don't think being forced to step hard on the brakes in an emergency should impose the death penalty.
I just think a few common commodities should be regulated in this way...the one's you most often see killing a driver. Obviously there are loads where this can't be avoided (Hurst has posted a few pic's of similar).

I mean really, if you braked hard and the cab came flying off the frame, there would be an outcry, but somehow way back when, a flatbedder shows up for a load of steel and goes "how am I supposed to secure this?", and shipper goes "dunno...whatcha got?"... and this becomes standard practice for the future of the industry?

...and I dunno, maybe this will never change, but maybe one of these Trucker Associations could fight for an exception to the weight laws that allowed the driver's who are involved in moving this stuff regularly (and who are concerned), to exempt extra rigging, or bulkheads, or headboards from their GVW? That would make sense to me.
I don't mean going crazy either. I'm saying maybe 5k in exempted equipment where your legal gross would be 85k "if regularly engaged in the transportation of steel or hard to secure freight".
I do think it should be the shippers who should have to deal with this, but at least with that plan, companies could opt to beef up their trailers and rigging at their own cost without suffering a penalty for it?

Just thoughts from an outsider guys (and gals). I will admit that it may be my own lack of experience that makes me think this way.