Legal check: Construction Vehicles and Mobile Plants

Discussion in 'Site Plant & Machinery' started by Neil Enslin, May 28, 2009.

  1. Neil Enslin

    Neil Enslin Moderator

    "Construction Vehicles and Mobile Plant" - Construction Regulation 21

    • "Competent" person appointed in writing to Operate Construction Vehicles or Mobile Plant
    • "Competent" person appointed in writing to Inspect Construction Vehicles or Mobile Plant
    • All Vehicles and Plant on register and inspected at correct intervals
    • All relevant Load Certificates available on site
    • Valid Operators Training Certificate available
    • Medical Certificates of Fitness of all Operators available on site
    "Competent Person" - means a person having the knowledge, training, experience and qualifications specific to the work or task being performed.
  2. Theo Fourie

    Theo Fourie New Member

    Hi there, I think you should include a valid drivers licence pertaining to the specific type of vehicle. Greetings
  3. Neil Enslin

    Neil Enslin Moderator

    Hi Theo, thank you for the in put and you are 100% correct, but can you tell us when drivers licence are not required but only training as per the DMR?
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 2, 2009
  4. Safety Joe

    Safety Joe Member

    Construction vehicles and plant - Drivers licences & PrDP

    The National Road Traffic Act states that any person operating any self-driven mobile vehicle or plant operating it within the road reserve shall have a drivers licence. The old "granfather" provision, such as tractor drivers crossing a public road from one side of a farm to the other, has been removed. Further to this the DoT included a B7 catergory licence to accommodate operators of construction plant.
  5. Brian

    Brian Member

    Drivers Licence - self-driven mobile vehicle or plant.

    I Guess within the road reserve are the operative words​

    My question is when it comes to EMV's and or FEL's etc larger machinery or such vehicles.
    I have never seen any driver or operator passing out at the traffic department on such a vehicle, which 9 times out of ten are operated on private and normally enclosed property.In which case does or will a public drivers license be applicable?Is one actually required to have one? or in terms of the OHS act does an operators certificate of competency cover it.
    For instance I can drive any vehicle I like all over my farm if I care to in a reasonable manner do what I like with it.
    The B7 license I presume is only relevant to the use of the specialist or specialized vehicle on a public road. ?I am not even sure if one has to have a PDP.
  6. Safety Joe

    Safety Joe Member

    Good day,
    As stated above, "within the road reserve" are the operative words". There is no actual legal test for operators of Self Propelled Mobile Machinery and their Code B licence is sufficient to operate on any public road or property. In cases where the operate does not enter onto a public road or property only a Competent Person as defined in the Construction Regulations may operate a SPMM. Hope this helps.
  7. Safety Joe

    Safety Joe Member

    Hi,
    I ommitted PrDP and B7 licence reply. No PrDP is necessary and yes, Code B7 licence was instituted to accommodate SPMM operators.
    A PrDP is only necessay when;
    a) heavy goods vehicle, loaded or emmpty; b) bus above 3500kg GVM; c)bus or minibus with seating for more than 12 including the driver [even when there are no passengers]; d) taxi or other vehicle carrying paying passengers [eg ambulance]; e) vehicle carrying more than 12 persons, including the driver, whether or not it has enough seats and irrespective of it's weight.
    Foresight Publications publishes an informative book each year titled the Professional Driver's Digest. You can contact Ken Ramsden on 021 855 2197.
    Hope all this clears the muddy waters :)
  8. Jaco Fourié

    Jaco Fourié New Member

    Good day all,

    On a different subject, can anyone assist me with the specific legislation that requires construction vehicles to have fire extinguishers on board?

    I know most manufacturers do sell TLB's, Excavators, Front End Loaders etc. with fire extinguishers fitted, but some older models don't have and I just want to make sure if it is a legal requirement or just a 'nice thing to have/do'.


    Thank You
  9. Neil Enslin

    Neil Enslin Moderator

    Hi Jaco,

    Please consult the supplier/dealers of these vehicles as they might have more information regarding this matter, as it might be prescribed in National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996.

    Regards,
  10. Jaco Fourié

    Jaco Fourié New Member

    Thank you Neil for your assistance. As always you open one's mind to a different angle of view.

    You think the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996 will be applicable on a construction site as it is technically not a 'road' or 'public'? (provided of course that the construction vehicles don't use public roads and are restricted to a construction site)
  11. Neil Enslin

    Neil Enslin Moderator

    Hi Jaco,

    You are basically answering your own question here now, if the vehicles are restricted to the construction site, then you need to consult the client's health and safety specification and see if they require the contractor to have fire extinguishers in their vehicles, and if they use the public/national roads the act above mention will, then apply.
  12. Brian

    Brian Member

    Legal Check : Construction Vehicles and Fire Extinguishers.

    On a different subject, can anyone assist me with the specific legislation that requires construction vehicles to have fire extinguishers on board?:(:(

    I know most manufacturers do sell TLB's, Excavators, Front End Loaders etc. with fire extinguishers fitted, but some older models don't have and I just want to make sure if it is a legal requirement or just a 'nice thing to have/do'.:confused:

    In terms of the OHSAS – 18001 Occupational Health and Safety Procedures, the following is stated and I quote “Where no specific legislative requirements exist, the contractor shall comply with and in accordance with “ Major Construction Elements; General Public and Third Party Safetyâ€

    Now this read with the relevant guidance of OHS act Sect 8. General duties of employers to their employees

    1. Every employer shall provide and maintain, as far as is reasonably practicable, a working environment that is safe and without risk to the health of his employees.

    2. Without derogating from the generality of an employer's duties under subsection (1), the matters to which those duties refer include in particular –

    a. the provision and maintenance of systems of work, plant and machinery that, as far as is reasonably practicable, are safe and without risks to health;

    b. taking such steps as may be reasonably practicable to eliminate or mitigate any hazard or potential hazard to the safety or health of employees, before resorting to personal protective equipment;

    Is there a legal requirement for fire extinguishers to be fitted to construction vehicles you ask?

    General health and safety legislation requires a risk assessment to be carried out on all work equipment, including construction vehicles or driven machinery which includes, Code 1 forklifts right through to Code 49 Straddle carriers and others of course, and if the assessment identified a need for fitting a fire extinguisher then it should be provided. However, this would be dependent on the particular case and is not a blanket requirement.

    Now I believe and this is my opinion only, that in terms of the law one needs to look at the “Reasonable man test†and I am sure that any reasonable man can identify the need for risk assessments to be carried out where construction vehicles or equipment is concerned, (Look at accident incident and death statistics where such vehicles or equipment has been used without all the proper or correct equipment, training and risk assessments having been complied with.)

    I will not go into listing examples of these needless tragedies as they are numerous and extensive.
    Also research the criminal and civil cases brought against employers in such incidents and one will see in most outcomes the employer was negligent in that he failed to follow the relevant and pertinent rules and regulations as set out in the OHS act or OHSAS – 18001 Occupational Health and Safety Procedures in terms of what the reasonable man would have or should have done.

    “Reasonable Man†A phrase frequently used in Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.

    The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. In most cases, persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care than is an ordinary person.

    Definition
    Ordinary, prudent person who normally exercises due care while avoiding extremes of both audacity and caution. Used as a test of liability in cases of negligence, this standard is not applied uniformly on all persons because varying degrees of reasonableness may be expected from a minor (infant), an adult, an unskilled person, or a professional such as a doctor.

    But if one goes further and considers CR 21 and reads between the lines, (here on a positive angle, not looking for a loop hole angle)

    I think we can conclude that the legislator simply may have overlooked the specific mention or inclusion of a fire extinguisher.

    Ha ha LOL, Something any reasonable man (especially a qualified safety officer, (Laughs even louder to himself)
    should be able to spot and realise that this is probably the line and angle a court of law would take in determining culpability or negligence in the event of an accident, injury or damage which could result from the use of construction vehicles. Where fire was an aspect and there was no fire extinguisher available or provided, which could have or would most likely have helped in preventing the cause of injury, loss of life or damages, financial loss, to company, client, employees or public property.

    Is there a legal requirement for fire extinguishers to be fitted to construction vehicles you ask?

    The straight answer is in my opinion a big “NO†But if one asks do we think it could be or could have been implied the answer would be “YESâ€

    So your “or just a 'nice thing to have or do†retort, is the answer. Yes it is and as a safety rep or Safety officer it is your duty to advise and inform the CEO or 16(1) that it would be in his best interest to provide fire extinguishers to all construction vehicle’s from LDV’s to code 49 Wharf cranes. It may save the company millions of rands. Because it could prevent, reduce or even eliminate the cause of injury, loss of life or damages, financial loss, to company, client, employees or public property, and civil suits.

    In a court of law, “I think you all get my driftâ€, the answer may just be a Big YES, it is a legal requirement. Even thought the legislator did not specifically mention or state it in word I am sure he implied it.

    Thank You for the Topic which I have now researched to the best of my ability and am now a bit wiser, because I had to THINK.

    Please add or attach any comments or opinions.

    Regards

    Safe Mate.:cool:
  13. Change Agent

    Change Agent Member

    This might be a rather old post, but I have a quiz for the wizzards of OHS!

    A fishing factory generates steam for their plant using two 20 t/hr coal fired boilers.
    To feed the coal from the bunker into the feed hopper, they use an excavator.

    Does CR 21 apply?
  14. Brian

    Brian Member

    I will stick my head out and Say "NO" because CR 21 says A contractor shall: In my opinion the fishing factory is not a contractor in the legislators interpretation or intention of the word.I think the legislator intended it to be aimed or directed at "Contractors" and construction work,not including a fishing factory feeding a coal fired boiler.

    And

    Feeding coal fired boilers does fit in the definition of "construction work"

    which according to the legislator is: any work in connection with-

    a)the erection, maintenance, alteration, renovation, repair, demolition or dismantling of or addition to a building or any similar structure;

    b)the installation, erection, dismantling or maintenance of a fixed plant where such work includes the risk of a person falling;

    c)the construction, maintenance, demolition or dismantling of any bridge, dam, canal, road, railway, runway, sewer or water reticulation system or any similar civil engineering structure; or

    d)the moving of earth, clearing of land, the making of an excavation, piling, or any similar type of work;

    And

    feeding the coal from the bunker into the feed hopper is simply not included as part of the above definition.

    So that is my answer, and Yes I may want to call a friend.

    He knows who he is.
  15. Change Agent

    Change Agent Member

    "the moving of earth,.........or any similar type of work"

    What does that involve?
    picking earth up with an excavator and dropping it in a truck
    picking coal up with an excavator and dropping it in a hopper

    Sounds similar?