Suicide or just lazy?

If this statement offends you, perhaps you really need to sit back and have an honest introspective into yourself and what you consider an acceptable "Risk Tolerance Assessment".
If ANYONE hauling loads of these proportions can not literally "write the book" on proper calculations and demonstrate complete due diligence in load security, quite frankly...take up take up golf instruction or some other non public life threatening mundane occupation and stay off the roads, my family shares them with you and I consider this type of Load Security/Risk Tolerance Assessment completely UNACCEPTABLE!
I'm sorry this driver and his family and loved ones had to learn the hard way, but I still believe we all should feel anyone without proper load securement procedures the equivalent of an impaired driver, it can clearly be just as deadly!

 

I understand and agree with your high standards and healthy respect for proper load securement. I wan't commenting on whether the driver did or did not follow proper securement. Frankly, I would have no business doing so, since I'm a wannabe.

What I was doing is suggesting the deceased driver not be painted with the suicide brush. He may have made a mistake, but to me and many others, suicide is a cowardly way out. This driver by the looks of it made a mistake, or had an accident. No evidence of suicide, that was all.

 

It simple...there are only three numbers you need to know, and if you can do first grade math you'll realize that really there are only two, as the third is automatically way over compensated for and requires virtually no regard...
80, 50, 25...that's it in a nutshell
80% of payload weight of WLL load security pulling backwards...
50% of payload weight of WLL load security pulling each sideways and forward...
25% of payload weight of WLL load security pulling down...as you can see if you have the 80 & 50 covered, this one will be drastically overcompensated for already...
Simple google search says a Komatsu W500 wheel loader Op Wgt of 29,470kgs/64,970lbs
80% of (29,470kg)64,970# is (23,576kg)51,976# worth of chain pulling backwards
50% of (29,470kg)64,970# is (14,375kg)32,485# worth of chain pulling each side as well as forward
25% of (29,470kg)64,970# is (7,368kg)16,243# worth of chain pulling down

This is the MINIMUM, most of the loads I see do not meet this standard...loads that do, do not shift.

To summarize, putting two, I don't care if they are 100 grade 1/2" chains, on a load this size is comparable to attempting to race an F1 car through rush hour traffic, or quite frankly Impaired Driving. No excuses, zero tolerance.

BTW, Grade 100 chain is for lifting, not load security. If you educated yourself on the metallurgical composition and responses you'd know why.

 

Yep. I've had that happen also. I cross chained to the tie down/tow lugs on a zoom boom and the bouncing snapped a new 3/8" GR 70.

 

Yes and no there, daf. It all depends on the specifics of the crash. I rarely make judgment on what caused something like this happen. And I rarely comment on others chaining. It's neither my place nor my job to tell others how to secure their loads unless they ask.

You can have 20 chains on a load, but, if they're not in the right positions, they won't hold the load as well as 4 or 6 properly placed chains.

 

I know it is a fine line between helping someone and that other person viewing it as a insult.

 

Hi daf, I don't know, I always listened to someone's suggestions. If I was doing something wrong, I'd like to know, rather than find out the hard way, like this poor unfortunate chap.

 

If you are now comparing this diceased driver to a guy who puts a gun in his mouth, you truly missed my point. Frankly, I think you should have some more respect for your fellow driver.

If I die because I did something stupid or made a mistake, I hope nobody starts grouping me with those that gave up on life and took the easy way.