Good morning all,

A little while ago I was having a bit of a debate with one of our FLT trainers who’s also got a safety background and curious on everyone else’s opinion. It seems throughout my career in manufacturing / logistics and before my role in safety I’ve watched people pull pallets to the rear of a van using straps to then remove the load with the FLT. Some obvious issues with this such as not what the straps are designed for, breakage, abuse the list could go on, but you no doubt all get the idea and it’s something I’ve seen time and time again over the years and I'd even go as far as common practice. I'll also point out I'm not Forklift Truck trained. 

A quick Google shows a few different products seem available, from full metal beams that seem to come with destruction testing and SWLs, and some that are a combo of straps with metal L-shaped hooks or clamps and I accept we have other hazards / unknowns like the strengh of the pallet. 

For the sake of the debate we assume that we can’t change to a more suitable vehicle with a tail lift and that we can’t always directly supervise these drivers, our trainer is adamant he’d not train anything of the type out, as pushing and pulling is not mentioned in the FLT course and is even regarded as a no go. He can only see hand-balling the contents of said pallet off the vans as the only way to complelte the job. 

I think it’s obvious that the handballing comes with its own manual handling risks and honestly I think you’d end up with them continuing to find and use any old straps from any old place because it’ to me its very much a human nature approach for the quick and easy route. 

My argument is that surely a dedicated piece of equipment that removes the main risks of using a strap but possibly doesn’t conform to the training is better than a blanket ban and demanding contents be manually removed which would be hard to enforce. 

Now I’m not saying either one of us is wrong or right but I’m more interested in the different approach we had to safety and possibly even our approach to reasonably practicable and everyone else's approach. 

Hi Kate, 

Sorry for the lack of detail. In this instance we're reffering to vans as opposed to a lorry, so the pallet would usually be agaisnt the headboard and they pull it back towards the rear doors. 

Sorry Jonny, i was a Local Authority inspector for 30 years looking at a lot of deliveries and never saw anything like you describe. Kate has made some very valid points - i guess you are attaching the starp to the FLT? Would be interested to know the breaking strain and how you work out the load its pulling, don't forget it will be more than the weight of the pallet because of the friction between the pallet and floor of van (unless you have rollers in place). I have seen a few chains snap when people have tried to use FLTs to pull heavy objects - fortunately no one was killed but did see one person suffer a fractured skull.

Hi Jonny

The "EDIT" you added to your last post is useful in so far as it means that we can approach the scenario from first principles rather than comment on what is being done in a specific workplace.

Ultimately this comes down to what "custom and practice" management (at all levels) are prepared to tolerate.

Let's put the pallet pulling (and pushing) to one side for a moment.

Perhaps the workforce are handling pallets which hold cardboard boxes which contains sweeties.

May be custom and practice is that every other van load, one box of sweeties goes walkies.

Would management tolerate this continuing?

If not, why should they tolerate the workers continuing unsafe practices, if there is a way that is inherently safer, AND reasonably practicable?

It's up to management* to work out what methodology SHOULD be adopted though it will usually help if they involve those who will do the work in the decision making process.

*Primary duty of care on the employer to put in place a safe working environment and safe "systems of work", with the duty on the workers being secondary.

Now, of course, if management don't take steps to help the workers make the right choices then life becomes problematic!

But, you have pointed to potential solutions. As example, if these pallets are being put in a van that is not large enough for an FLT to reach in, or to use a small pallet truck inside, then may be you need to reduce the friction. So may be rollers (but with means of securing the load in transit) so that a pallet at the bulkhead can be easily manually handled towards the door?

OR you load less onto a pallet or use a different method of placing the cargo entirely. Plenty of options.

Long time ago, I started a new job and asked each of our offices to send me copies of the last two years' entries into the accident book. To be honest I wasn't expecting to learn very much.

However, one office with 35 staff had recorded 19 scalpel injuries (all very minor) in that 2 year period. Turned out that they when designing changes to structures they were taking the old blueprint drawings and amending them - which process meant scraping off old ink from the drawings.

So that was the local "custom and practice". I asked whether they had CAD (Computer Aided Design) to which the answer was YES. Next question - "why are you not moving these drawings on to CAD, so that, in future there will be no need to contemplate scraping blueprints?" 

Now this might not have been reasonably practicable if we were dealing with one off Clients and one off Projects, but like most of our offices, this one dealt with a small number of Clients time after time. If only to show that we were up to date, it made sense to use the technology available.

As much about protecting our reputation as being on the ball as preventing injuries. 

Hi HSS, Peter

I think I’ve not explained my point very well and Peter’s “custom and practice” angle is closer to what I meant.

I’m not saying it’s safe. Dragging with whatever strap is lying around isn’t safe. It still happens. People don’t do it in front of an LA inspector or the H&S bod because they know it’s a workaround that's not correct but it works.

I know the clean answer is “change the vehicle, use a dock, get a scissor lift”. Totally agree where that’s realistic. but I'm assuming for this scenario it isn’t. Low spend, ad-hoc drops.

So this is the difference in approach. the second safety bod had view of ban any pulling or pushing and tell them to handball, lines up with training, but in the real world a lot of people won’t do it and second safety bod acknowledges they’ll just go back to custom but he's got a very valid point about the training and the correct use of a FLT. My view is even if the purchased puller had it's own set of risks but at least it's designed for the task and we can control the risks more effectively. 

It was more a question about approach, thought process, morally acceptable, when decisions and outcomes struggle to be perfect and a middle ground or question of conflict, A is correct on paper and inline with training and conforms to whatever regulations and policies but B could ACTUALLY reduce the likelihood of someone being hurt?

I can appreciate what is being described - a long wheel base vehicle with only rear doors for access.

During loading the first pallet is loaded to the rear of the vehicle by FLT and then a second pallet is used to push the first towards the headboard and create space for the second. When it comes to off-loading the second pallet is easy to lift but the first is beyond the reach of the forks so needs moving on the truck bed to become accessible.

There are three issues at play here:

1) An unsuitable delivery vehicle - if it is meant to carry two pallets either buy (or rent) one with a side door to access the first pallet pushed against the headboard OR have a flat back so the FLT can access the load area from three sides.

2) Unsuitable off-loading equipment - if the FLT was suitably designed with the correct fork attachments it would be able to reach the vans headboard.

3) When pallets are "designed" for their load the designer will consider normal operation to be vertical lifting and lowering. It would not be designed for lateral load to be dragged by its blocks along a floor.

So whilst people may be "making do" when the pallet or strap gives way and someone is struck was the Risk Asessment of the task adequate?

Hi Jonny

To put it very bluntly I think it is time for managers to do some managing and justify their big pay packets.

Instead of leaving it to Safety Bod No 1 and Safety Bod No 2 to work out for them.

Yes, they should be able to ask a Safety Bod for assistance, but not via attempting to delegate their responsibility.

Even longer ago, when I worked for HSE, I went to a large factory and into the cooperage, where usually the highly competent tradespeople would be working on curved bits of wood - components of casks for storing overproof whisky.

What prompted my visit was that there had been an accident on a circular saw. 

They had been cutting components to repair wooden pallets. Bit of an insult to coopers, but they presumably didn't have much say in what they had been asked to do.

I wasn't too bothered about the "abstract" of the Woodworking Machinery Regulations 1922 up on the wall, though I did point out that it was about time that it was replaced with that of the 1974 Regulations.

In practice, nothing much had changed in 50 years in terms of the regulatory requirements of how to safeguard a circular saw.

I was bothered that the push stick had gone walk about. Usually, in any such workshop, the push stick would be partly painted red (so easily found amongst any wood chips on the floor) and be attached to a length of string tied to the machine.

However, what really concerned me was why this operation was being done at all. Why was MANAGEMENT not making sure that incoming pallets were fit for purpose not needing repairs? [Basic application of the 'hierarchy of control measures'!]

This had become established "custom and practice" and everyone was just getting on with it. Not atypical slopey shoulders from those at the higher levels. Somebody in Procurement had fallen asleep and nobody had woken them up.

Edited by user 11 August 2025 14:35:15(UTC)  | Reason: Syntax

Most FLT's I have seen are capable of towing.

The manufacturer recommends this is done with the rear hitch rather than any part of the fork lift mechanism.

We then find the kind of "quick fix" HSSnail located on the internet which is unlikley to see approval by the FLT manufacturer as an appropriate accessory otherwise it would be in their catalogue.

Just because something is for sale does not make it legal, compliant or suitable for supply.

As to whose site - if it is as descibed a micro business they wont have the cash for any remedy.

They could however (and should have) taken the time to discuss off-loading requirements with the supplier who could arrange a HIAB or Moffet delivery.

The delivery driver meanwhile on behalf of their employer has a duty of customer care and should be avoiding activity that coud damage the vehicle by inappropriate materials handling.