I've already argued on the unwisdom of squeezing down the inside of tipper trucks on the other thread. Here though, all I'm seeing are evasions and excuses. The haulage industry has a deliberate policy of externalising the risks of its industry onto all other road users, for the sake of saving some money. And has been ably demonstrated in this thread, there is endless resistance to any measure that may increase safety. Put simply, that is inexcusable.
Your distinction between construction and haulage is quite frankly, artificial. Construction vehicles are designed the way they are for the benefit of the construction industry - and again the risks are externalised onto other (especially vulnerable) road users. That also is inexcusable. Why, for instance, is a vehicle that requires a banksman on a building site allowed without any safety precautions onto the public highway?
no they are not . look at any rigid chassis lorry. same design for a box on the back for parcels , or a tipper body . or as a container lorry. so there's no legs in that argument.
as for the cost one on retractable guards , ok say they cost a grand each , and you have a fleet of 100 vehicles , fitting them overnight ( like some hint at here) is not only impossible physically but also financially . or should we just shut everything down ? thats reasonably practicable isn't it !
lets get a man with a flag then .
and banksman is for one reason. stopping the lorry going down the hole, tipping over on the bank of earth etc . the people protection is a secondary role as much as we hate it that way.
lower vehicles would suit me on site , mainly for the offloading as the distance to fall is smaller , and whilst any height is still WAH , the control measures are easier to implement on a smaller height.
