Do shingle loads really need x-straps.

That works. Too many people not doing what they want then they will just require tarping instead.

It could be worse.

 

I've taken my 8' 4x4 dunnage and placed it on top of shingles that are palletized in the manner which we are discussng-the style that leaves stragglers unsecured. Do it right and it is kinder to the corners of the bundles and you won't need edge protectors, in fact I devised it because I was short a few edge protectors.
It absolutely looks like unholy crap, though, and I wouldn't be seen driving that load to a dogfight. Just got me down the road.

 

I am not a flatbedder but that mental imagery of that person that can't wait to "tell on you" is soo true. Now, with pictures, and cell phones the tattletale has it convenient. They used to have to find a payphone, or wait till they got back to terminal.

 

Lookup: National Safety Code Standard 10, Section100, Subsection 2 (a). Federal code is very limited on commodities, and only quotes regulations on specific materials. Logs, lumber, coil, paper rolls, concrete pipe, sea-cans, roll-offs, vehicles, and boulders.

 

I looked, it says shingles should be secured according to the general securement section 1 requirements which don’t mention cross strapping. I know the US rules and in the US you’re wrong.

 

I think that's a cya policy, do the other drivers do it all the time?

 

Your question to me was: Can I find anywhere, on any load, where cross strapping is required? Look man... you obviously come on here, just to get into a pissing match with anyone that disagrees with you. I'm quoting facts related to your question.

 

Further, the code I gave you to lookup, is unilateral between Canada/US/Mexico. Also as I mentioned, the code relating to commodities is generalized, and doesn't state anywhere about shingles specifically. Give me the actual code number to reference then. Because I can't find anything specifically mentioning shingle loads. As I mentioned in my 1st comment, there's way more commodities out there for us to haul, then Federal laws written. So when you pull up at the scale, and the DOT are scratching their heads as to what law your load applies to... you will get varying results in different locations, based on the knowledge and experience of the officer involved.
If a commodity is round (like a huge rock truck tire) where it has the ability to slide forward... do you not cross strap/chain that??? But find me in the Federal Regs, where it specifically mentions a rock truck tire. Do you see my point here?

 

That was not my question, in the conversation between you and I you’re the only one who mentioned cross strapping. I pointed out that you quoted a reg that 1, doesn’t mentioned cross strapping, and 2 is specific to Canada and I’ve said I know nothing about Canada. O don’t come here just to argue but I am good at when someone comes on spewing nonsense like you are.

Oh god, no the “National Safety Code” is not unilateral it only applies to Canada. The code you mentioned does specifically mention shingles and is says the “general general securement provisions apply”. I’ve hauled a lot of off stuff and can’t say I’ve ever had them scratch their head. A rock truck tire is easy, I’ve hauled plenty of them what’s it weigh? You’re required to have enough securement for half the static weight, to control longitudinal and latitudinal movement. There’s nothing more to it than that. If you chain over it from one side to the other the roundness of the tire won’t allow it forward movement. I see them all the time secured this way. Bottom line you’re original claim that state laws can trump federal laws is false as well as your assessment on securement in general.