Thanks for your input. Post closed

Bbforks, you are right and i'm with you, if someone wants to work hard & get rich, good for them, i was only saying not becoming poor someone else.....
And, you are right about the fact that this is an hot topic (and off topic), so i close my posts about that. Goodbye.

I'm sorry- I just have to give my 2 cents. Forklifts were invented to reduce manpower costs- period (IMHO). A manned forklift does the work of multiple employees, never calls in sick, has no workmans comp claims, etc.

Unmanned forklifts will become the norm when their pricing becomes affordable for smaller companies. A small business can't justify the 60 to 80 thousand dollars for an unmanned lift. I'm quite sure that with todays technology an unmanned forklift could serve in multiple capacities as Karait stated.

And please- don't talk about a redistribution of wealth. Over here in the US it's a hot topic. If someone wants to work hard & get rich, good for them. If you want to punch a clock & go home at 5- good for you too. One is not better then the other- just different.

As far as making forklift operators safer- the only answer to is make them financially responsible for their actions. Mounting cameras on worksites & monitoring those cameras would be a huge determent to some of the stupid things I see operators do. I think everyone knows what's safe & what's not, but if there's no one watching, no proof you did anything, along with no reprimand, then it becomes a playground for children.

I have plain to go Australia thanks for share such a good information.

Dear Edward and Karait, I think that the problem is only the proper redistribution of wealth produced by robots or fully automated systems.
I think the initial idea was to liberate man from fatigue, not to make humanity a slave to a few white-collar workers.
So I think the problem is not to hope to survive another 10 or 20 years, hoping that the technology will evolve slowly, but ride it for all the people derive benefit.
In Italy 9 million people voted a movement that is going to Direct Democracy.

Dear Edward
While I definitely agree, that in the upcoming future, the technology will "remove" the humans labor from many production/logistic processess, I wouldn't be so optimistic/pesimistic (you choose) about the forklift trucks.
Of course - in the large logistic centers, where all the routes are plannable and the processess are strictly defined, the solution has advantages.
But, according to my knowledge, about 40-to 60% (depends upon the region) of volume goes to endusers who operate 1-7 trucks in many different applications.
The remote controlled machines will never achieve the flexibility of normal forklift, when one day you unload the lorry, another day you tow the trailer (;-)), or remove the snow with the snowplough.
This would be an universal robot.
Today the multifuncional robots are still in developement stage, millions of dollars are invested to obtain the defect free, self propelled device, which can be used for more than one or two functions (see the Mars Curiosity). I think that within next 20 years none of the smaller users will be able to purchase such sophisticated machine.

These days, in my not all that humble opinion, the biggest thing keeping technology from removing the operator is that we already do not have or need enough jobs for everyone that wants to work. Once we do away with forklift operators, who will be left to pay into the 'unemployment insurance fund'?

Just as "globalization" [read as -forklifts- and material handling advancements enabling the movement of mass quantities of goods over long distances with very little {expensive} manpower] has made it possible to have {very inexpensive} foods and goods from all over the world to all over the world, but does not really require as many people working full time to provide those goods. Just as forklifts have eliminated about 80% of the longshoremen jobs (per pound mile of good transported in [say] 1939), if we did without operators (just like we/google will be loosing all taxi drivers in about 10 years with self driving cars,) we would loose another load of jobs with 'the increase in productivity' that will come with totally operator-less powered industrial trucks. but that seems to me that it is coming.
(see Ray Kurzweil's books "The Singularity Is Near", "The Age of Spiritual Machines" and "The Age of Intelligent Machines")
"We will be the Borg, you can try and resist,,, but it is futile"

I think the best solution I have heard. "Only way to make a forklift safe is to remove the operator."

More rules, more problems. Keep it simple. If I were a trainer in Australia I would go find another job. The only thing that makes people safe is people. When it comes to forklift safety, its about 98%"want to" and 2% "how to". This 400sq m thing and assessing out away from prying eyes is weakening the weak. It's called bureaucracy. I will bet the person who signed off on bill has never even been in a warehouse.

All the best

More rules, more problems. Keep it simple. If I were a trainer in Australia I would go find another job. The only thing that makes people safe is people. When it comes to forklift safety, its about 98%"want to" and 2% "how to". This 400sq m thing and assessing out away from prying eyes is weakening the weak. It's called bureaucracy. I will bet the person who signed off on bill has never even been in a warehouse.

All the best

Joe,

I think the new rules will get rid of most of the cowboys that exist in forklift training. i'll give you an example of the new rules.
An assessor must become accredited by the Government.
The area where you carry out the practical assessment must be at lease 400sq m
There are 25 critical questions that must be answered correctly with no exceptions. Failure to answer one of the 25 will deem the trainee NYC. There is another lot of non-critical question that you can get a few incorrect but after feedback must be answered correctly during the practical test.
An assessor must give OHS three days' notice of an assessment so one of the inspectors can turn up unannounced to oversee the assessment. This is think is a good idea as I'm sure the inspector will give good advice of where an assessor is going wrong or advice on improving an assessment.
Overall I think the new rules are good, but should be relaxed on the critical questions as most trainees will study hard but be very nervous on the day

Dear PaddyB,

I'm curious about the rules in Australia compared to those in the USA. Is there a web site where one can view the rules you reference? I understand the Australian rules are much more voluminous (a lot more pages), but I have no take on their effectiveness or validity.

Your question raises just this point, or I do NOT think you would be asking the question. I personally tend to question training regulations that typically are written and advanced by people who are either politically motivated to some other purpose, and/or have NO evidence that the training rules will actually work effectively in the field. Since such rules are mandates and you must comply, it is up to you to find ways that are compliance-acceptable to the regulators while also finding ways to deliver effective training i.e. training that transfers to the workplace.

I believe achieving compliance AND transfer to the job often requires a systematic approach that 1) has NO self-cancelling principles, 2) is elegant in that all the elements of the system "fit" with each other, and 3) can be improved as objective evidence, over time, demonstrates a need to change some aspect of the system. Government training regulations typically do NOT meet this "systematic standard" of effectiveness no matter where the rules were made.

For information that might inform your effectivness, you can get free and useful information at the "yet-to-be-launched" web site: www dot LIFTOR dot com.

Best wishes,