Carryfast:
Yes it’s carrying petrol.How do you know that?.Because it’s written on the sides/back/front of the truck in great big titanium letters.How about coming to a compromise of having all those codes and letters and the full title description of what the stuff actually is too for the simple ones like that on domestic journeys starting in one UK place and finishing in another or maybe even the simple idea of changing description languages at ports of entry for some too then we’d have the best of all worlds?.
Hi Carryfast, That might work if you could persuade the tanker firms to adopt the idea. Failing that, you could ask the DfT to take a look at it.
I’m guessing that you’d meet some resistance from the tanker firms who probably feel that they have enough compliance costs already.
Carryfast:
But as it is it’s often going to take sometime from when Joe Public pulls up behind the tanker that’s just been wrecked and when the the firebrigade get to check all those codes by looking at them if they’re still there when they get there and then have to decide on the right kit for the job?.
Your scenarios seem to have the driver incapacitated and the load documentation lost each time you make a suggestion. IMHO, Joe Public is perfectly capable of realising that tankers carry nasty ‘stuff’ and to stay away from the tidal wave of leaking ‘stuff.’ The everyday reality is that tanker accidents are quite rare and that, due to legally required design characteristics, leakages are also rare. You may not know this, but most tankers have a footvalve (imagine a bath-plug) inside the tank, as well as the valves and caps that you can see. There is a system, and it’s pretty good. Trust me!!
Carryfast:
But yes it’s very easy to see the sense in using numbers to represent the description,hazard type,and the type in those complicated cases?..
That’s a good point mate, but I think it raises another question…
Who gets to define “complicated?” (By whose measure is something to be called “complicated??”) To a person who doesn’t know much about any given subject, almost all of that subject would probably seem “complicated.” If it’s “complicated” now, why add yet more requirements?? (Which might complicate things even more. )
Thanks Dave you’re right I was only really referring to the worst case type thing where you’d have an example of a driver who’s not going to be part of the equation and where access to the cab in the first instance to get any papers is untenable because of the safety issues of a fire hazard from a leaking load and an ignition possibility nearby and an example where it’s just general traffic first on scene.But the fact that it’s such a rare occurrence shows just how relatively safe road transport really is contrary to the propaganda always in the news.I was trying to make the case for the public to not only stay safe but for them at least to maybe be able to make a difference in the rare case where that quick call with a definite identification might make the difference in a fast response in some cases but you’re right it would be very difficult to improve on what we’ve got in place now.
Carryfast:
Thanks Dave you’re right I was only really referring to the worst case type thing where you’d have an example of a driver who’s not going to be part of the equation and where access to the cab in the first instance to get any papers is untenable because of the safety issues of a fire hazard from a leaking load and an ignition possibility nearby and an example where it’s just general traffic first on scene.
Hi Carryfast, If an accident happened as per your scenario, perhaps 999 control would ask the person reporting it whether they could see any markings without the person reporting the accident needing to get too close?? The minimum size of a UK tanker marker board is 700 mm width X 400 mm height.
Statistics from the HSE:
16 Overturning or serious damage to a tank while conveying by road prescribed dangerous substances, or the uncontrolled release or fire involving the substance being conveyed = 12 incidents for the year 2007/8
17 Uncontrolled release or escape of a dangerous substance, or a fire involving the dangerous substance, when being conveyed by road in a vehicle = 18 incidents for the year 2007/8
Carryfast:
But the fact that it’s such a rare occurrence shows just how relatively safe road transport really is contrary to the propaganda always in the news.I was trying to make the case for the public to not only stay safe but for them at least to maybe be able to make a difference in the rare case where that quick call with a definite identification might make the difference in a fast response in some cases but you’re right it would be very difficult to improve on what we’ve got in place now.
I’m of the opinion that a large % of the population seem to think that all tankers are carrying dangerous goods. Of course, the marking of tankers is a subject that is covered in great depth in the UK’s dangerous goods Regulations and ADR, (but ADR tanker markings are quite different to ours.) A look at the Highway Code suggests that the general motoring public ought to know that a marker board such as in the OP’s pic means that dangerous goods are being carried.
dieseldave:
A look at the Highway Code suggests that the general motoring public ought to know that a marker board such as in the OP’s pic means that dangerous goods are being carried.
What the general driving public should know - HC VEHICLE MARKINGS
Seeing a diamond sign is usually enough warning for most drivers that they should keep well clear !!
My local advanced driving group has got someone to talk to us on this very subject on Weds 21 of this month
dieseldave:
A look at the Highway Code suggests that the general motoring public ought to know that a marker board such as in the OP’s pic means that dangerous goods are being carried.
What the general driving public should know - HC VEHICLE MARKINGS
Seeing a diamond sign is usually enough warning for most drivers that they should keep well clear !!
Whilst that’s true ROG it makes me wonder why a document such as the HC hasn’t got the LEGALLY REQUIRED colours correct. ( 7 times)
Carryfast:
Thanks Dave you’re right I was only really referring to the worst case type thing where you’d have an example of a driver who’s not going to be part of the equation and where access to the cab in the first instance to get any papers is untenable because of the safety issues of a fire hazard from a leaking load and an ignition possibility nearby and an example where it’s just general traffic first on scene.
Hi Carryfast, If an accident happened as per your scenario, perhaps 999 control would ask the person reporting it whether they could see any markings without the person reporting the accident needing to get too close?? The minimum size of a UK tanker marker board is 700 mm width X 400 mm height.
Statistics from the HSE:
16 Overturning or serious damage to a tank while conveying by road prescribed dangerous substances, or the uncontrolled release or fire involving the substance being conveyed = 12 incidents for the year 2007/8
17 Uncontrolled release or escape of a dangerous substance, or a fire involving the dangerous substance, when being conveyed by road in a vehicle = 18 incidents for the year 2007/8
Carryfast:
But the fact that it’s such a rare occurrence shows just how relatively safe road transport really is contrary to the propaganda always in the news.I was trying to make the case for the public to not only stay safe but for them at least to maybe be able to make a difference in the rare case where that quick call with a definite identification might make the difference in a fast response in some cases but you’re right it would be very difficult to improve on what we’ve got in place now.
I’m of the opinion that a large % of the population seem to think that all tankers are carrying dangerous goods. Of course, the marking of tankers is a subject that is covered in great depth in the UK’s dangerous goods Regulations and ADR, (but ADR tanker markings are quite different to ours.) A look at the Highway Code suggests that the general motoring public ought to know that a marker board such as in the OP’s pic means that dangerous goods are being carried.
Most tankers that I’ve seen that are’nt carrying nasties usually have a sign saying that such as non hazardous or the German version which you see quite often? but I’m not sure if it’s compulsory?.But I still reckon that a definite identification such as petrol,diesel,kerosene etc. in addition to the normal codes might be useful in some cases?.But sign recognition for non hazardous should be something that’s just as important to show as hazardous codes and recognising the difference should be put in the car theory test?.It might save a lot of unwarranted drama at an accident scene?.
dieseldave:
A look at the Highway Code suggests that the general motoring public ought to know that a marker board such as in the OP’s pic means that dangerous goods are being carried.
What the general driving public should know - HC VEHICLE MARKINGS
Seeing a diamond sign is usually enough warning for most drivers that they should keep well clear !!
Whilst that’s true ROG it makes me wonder why a document such as the HC hasn’t got the LEGALLY REQUIRED colours correct. ( 7 times)
Even the scale of the orange plate looks a little dubious
Carryfast:
Most tankers that I’ve seen that are’nt carrying nasties usually have a sign saying that such as non hazardous or the German version which you see quite often? but I’m not sure if it’s compulsory?.But I still reckon that a definite identification such as petrol,diesel,kerosene etc. in addition to the normal codes might be useful in some cases?.But sign recognition for non hazardous should be something that’s just as important to show as hazardous codes and recognising the difference should be put in the car theory test?.It might save a lot of unwarranted drama at an accident scene?.
I believe the modern practice of tanker marking would be a sign saying Low Hazard rather than non Hazardous as even a spilled tanker of lube oil or detergent can be hazardous to drains, watercourses or even pedestrians if they go arse over ■■■ on it.
ADR doesnt use the sign for low hazards, the signs you may mean are used in the food industry with Nur Fur Lebensmittel or Liquides Alimentaire. Food Products Only.
Carryfast:
Most tankers that I’ve seen that are’nt carrying nasties usually have a sign saying that such as non hazardous or the German version which you see quite often?
Hi Carryfast,Wheel Nut has this correct mate.
The German version isn’t anything to do with non-hazardous, because Nur für Lebensmittel means ‘only for food.’
Carryfast:
but I’m not sure if it’s compulsory?.
The black-and-white marker board system is voluntary, but if it is used, it’s still helpful to the fire-brigade because of the EAC in the top left portion of the board:
Carryfast:
But I still reckon that a definite identification such as petrol,diesel,kerosene etc. in addition to the normal codes might be useful in some cases?.
I honestly can’t see how mate, because of:
Foreign languages
The length and complexity of some chemical names
What difference would it actually make?
Carryfast:
But sign recognition for non hazardous should be something that’s just as important to show as hazardous codes and recognising the difference should be put in the car theory test?.It might save a lot of unwarranted drama at an accident scene?.
I still reckon that your average folks would keep clear of an overturned and leaking tanker no matter what markings were on it? If a tanker has the name and logo of an oil company displayed, Mr/Ms average will probably assume that it’s carrying petrol and be very scared of it, no matter what it’s really carrying.
Cruise Control:
Hi guys, could you explain your above posts in layman terms please…
Diesel Dave has probably just fallen off his chair reading this while choking on his pie
Hi Cruise Control, no problems here mate, cos answering a question such as yours in your OP is routine stuff for me.
BTW, I answered your original question in my third post on page #1 and I hope my explanation was understandable.
All the rest of what’s come up since then is an interesting discussion with great input from several posters, but it’s not really relevant to your original question.
Cruise Control:
Hi guys, could you explain your above posts in layman terms please…
Diesel Dave has probably just fallen off his chair reading this while choking on his pie
Hi Cruise Control, no problems here mate, cos answering a question such as yours in your OP is routine stuff for me.
BTW, I answered your original question in my third post on page #1 and I hope my explanation was understandable.
All the rest of what’s come up since then is an interesting discussion with great input from several posters, but it’s not really relevant to your original question.
Diesel Dave saw yours and other peopls replies and posted a thank you i think…it did make sense to me what they all stand for.
to the other posts about other ADR stuff that went right over my head it was a poor tempt at humour on my part
Carryfast:
Most tankers that I’ve seen that are’nt carrying nasties usually have a sign saying that such as non hazardous or the German version which you see quite often?
Hi Carryfast,Wheel Nut has this correct mate.
The German version isn’t anything to do with non-hazardous, because Nur für Lebensmittel means ‘only for food.’
Carryfast:
but I’m not sure if it’s compulsory?.
The black-and-white marker board system is voluntary, but if it is used, it’s still helpful to the fire-brigade because of the EAC in the top left portion of the board:
Carryfast:
But I still reckon that a definite identification such as petrol,diesel,kerosene etc. in addition to the normal codes might be useful in some cases?.
I honestly can’t see how mate, because of:
Foreign languages
The length and complexity of some chemical names
What difference would it actually make?
Carryfast:
But sign recognition for non hazardous should be something that’s just as important to show as hazardous codes and recognising the difference should be put in the car theory test?.It might save a lot of unwarranted drama at an accident scene?.
I still reckon that your average folks would keep clear of an overturned and leaking tanker no matter what markings were on it? If a tanker has the name and logo of an oil company displayed, Mr/Ms average will probably assume that it’s carrying petrol and be very scared of it, no matter what it’s really carrying.
That German one etc was what I meant but only for food always meant the same as non/low hazard to me anyway.Having said that some say that they put gunpowder in certain types of curry.
Carryfast:
That German one etc was what I meant but only for food always meant the same as non/low hazard to me anyway.Having said that some say that they put gunpowder in certain types of curry.
Trust Wheel Nut to further confuse the issue, you might have an edible essential oil, or maybe not
Our pine needle oil is extracted from Pine (Scotch pine) oil, which is extracted from Pinus sylvestris of the Pinaceae family and is also known as Scots and forest pine.
or you may get this.
Shipping Name: Pine Oil
Hazard Class: 3
UN Number: 1272
Packing Group: III
Pine oil is a kind of terpine which is compound from turpentine
Carryfast:
That German one etc was what I meant but only for food always meant the same as non/low hazard to me anyway.
Hi Carryfast, I can see what you mean, but that raises a question…
Would you fancy drinking some milk that had been carried in a tanker that had carried crude oil as its last load?
Some dodgy-looking geezer would tell you that it’s had a wash-out in between loads, but would you believe him?
If everybody is doing their jobs correctly, there’s a world of difference between a ‘chemical’ tank and a ‘food’ tank for exactly that reason.
BTW, a ‘food’ tank is sometimes known as a ‘S.C.O.P.A.’ tank, but that’s a completely different set of rules to the rules for carrying dangerous goods, so an ADR licence isn’t required for SCOPA work.
Carryfast:
Having said that some say that they put gunpowder in certain types of curry.
Carryfast:
That German one etc was what I meant but only for food always meant the same as non/low hazard to me anyway.
Hi Carryfast, I can see what you mean, but that raises a question…
Carryfast:
Having said that some say that they put gunpowder in certain types of curry.
Now we’re way off-topic.
I know but could you imagine everyone falling about laughing,even the Germans,when that only for food tanker suddenly went up on the autobahn because it had a return load of curry in it from Southall.
Cruise Control: Diesel Dave saw yours and other peopls replies and posted a thank you i think…it did make sense to me what they all stand for.
to the other posts about other ADR stuff that went right over my head it was a poor tempt at humour on my part
Hi Cruise Control, You asked such a good question that I’ve added it to the ADR ‘sticky’ in the Safety and Law forum here:
If you can stay awake long enough, the ‘sticky’ is 5 pages long and guaranteed to cure insomnia.
But seriously mate, there’s a lot of ADR info all gathered together in one place.
If you read that lot and still have a question, I’ll happily try and answer it for you.
Several of our continental cousins run dual product tankers,they have a 3 or 4 compartment Jumbo tanker in a similar configuration to this.
Pot 1 - 7500 litres
Pot 2 - 25500 litres
Pot 3 - 9500 Litres
Pot 4 - 7500 litres
On an outward journey to Spain for example they would load pot 1, 3 & 4 with an ADR load and could load the centre food compartment back with olive oil or similar.
In addition to the separate food compartment the tanker outlet may well be on the opposite side to the other compartments as well as the pipe tubes and fittings. The biggest problem with these is the weight.
Norman Lewis used a similar tanker design but the reason was that the chemical we carried was either too expensive or impossible to clean in parts of Europe.
The S.C.O.P.A that Dave mentions is not used in Europe either, only in the UK. It is the "Seed Crushers & Oil Processors Association. But SCOPA in the UK offers traceability to the industry.
To a person who doesn’t know much about any given subject, almost all of that subject would probably seem “complicated.”
)
