Road closed in Market Harborough as lorry hits bridge minutes after it is repaired.

[J-Rod]

I've been reading these threads with interest and trying to come to a balanced view of the problem, taking into account both sides' viewpoints.

Then I thought: replace the word 'bridge' with 'wall'

So, if trucks routinely drove through walls onto railway lines... who should be liable then?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

When the Brexit stuff is all over , it has to be time to legislate and enforce

 

[HowardGWR]

I am not quite certain why folk think the lorry firm is not liable. On the GWSR, a firm whose lorry hit the Broadway bridge recently, is coughing up from its insurance. I wonder if the NR spokesman quoted above was not being a bit economical with the whole story. Perhaps the drivers may well be committing a road offence (driving without due care and attention), which is a different matter altogether.

 

[Antman]

When the Brexit stuff is all over , it has to be time to legislate and enforce

What do you have in mind?

 

[philthetube]

A mistake is made when a driver goes under a low bridge, it is no more or less of a mistake than a driver having a spad, caused by a momentary less of concentration, if anything there is less excuse for a spads.

A train driver has to worry about a signal which he knows the location of and, usually, in advance what it will show.
A Lorry driver has many more different things relating to a bridge to worry about, any one of which can cause a bridge strike.

Height of lorry today, (can vary day by day)
Driving a strange route (Train drivers don't do that).
Signs not visible from a long distance and are not in your face the way signals are.

I am sure there are others as well.

I am not saying that Lorry drivers should not be prosecuted for due care and attention or whatever, just that it is double standards to call for hanging of lorry drivers for one bridge strike and not train drivers for one spad.

Bus drivers often have less of an excuse as they are normally in areas they regularly traverse.

The main point I am making is that road infrastructure needs to be designed to reduce the liklehood of bridge strikes in the same way as rail infrastructure is designed to reduce the risk of spads.

 

[furnessvale]

A mistake is made when a driver goes under a low bridge, it is no more or less of a mistake than a driver having a spad, caused by a momentary less of concentration, if anything there is less excuse for a spads.

A train driver has to worry about a signal which he knows the location of and, usually, in advance what it will show.
A Lorry driver has many more different things relating to a bridge to worry about, any one of which can cause a bridge strike.

Height of lorry today, (can vary day by day)
Driving a strange route (Train drivers don't do that).
Signs not visible from a long distance and are not in your face the way signals are.

I am sure there are others as well.

I am not saying that Lorry drivers should not be prosecuted for due care and attention or whatever, just that it is double standards to call for hanging of lorry drivers for one bridge strike and not train drivers for one spad.

Bus drivers often have less of an excuse as they are normally in areas they regularly traverse.

The main point I am making is that road infrastructure needs to be designed to reduce the liklehood of bridge strikes in the same way as rail infrastructure is designed to reduce the risk of spads.

One major difference. Driving on a road is done on line of sight. Therefore, an HGV driver should be able to stop when he sees the bridge or its attendant signs.

Incidentally, I don't think anyone is calling for hanging the driver, rather that his company take more responsibility, including the full cost of the incident.

 

[Lucan]

A Lorry driver has many more different things relating to a bridge to worry about ..
..........
Driving a strange route (Train drivers don't do that).
..........
I am not saying that Lorry drivers should not be prosecuted for due care and attention or whatever, just that it is double standards to call for hanging of lorry drivers for one bridge strike and not train drivers for one spad.

Big difference is whether damage is caused or not; by definition a bridge strike is damage but SPADs do not necessarily cause damage. Your comparison is wrong anyway. : the real comparison is a SPAD versus a lorry higher than the height on the warning sign passing that sign even if no stike occurs. Height warning signs are pessimistic in that a lorry a little higher can get away with it, and I have no doubt a lot do - possibly knowingly.

There is also confusion here between prosecution for lack of care and civil damages. Someone has to pay for the bridge damage and that should be the lorry driver or his company (or their insurance) as a civil matter. Of course, also the driver ought to be prosecuted for undue care etc (leaving aside the "hanging" exageration) just as a train driver should be disciplined for a SPAD.

 

[Antman]

Big difference is whether damage is caused or not; by definition a bridge strike is damage but SPADs do not necessarily cause damage. Your comparison is wrong anyway. : the real comparison is a SPAD versus a lorry higher than the height on the warning sign passing that sign even if no stike occurs. Height warning signs are pessimistic in that a lorry a little higher can get away with it, and I have no doubt a lot do - possibly knowingly.

There is also confusion here between prosecution for lack of care and civil damages. Someone has to pay for the bridge damage and that should be the lorry driver or his company (or their insurance) as a civil matter. Of course, also the driver ought to be prosecuted for undue care etc (leaving aside the "hanging" exageration) just as a train driver should be disciplined for a SPAD.

What damage is caused is beside the point, lorry drivers shouldn't be hitting low bridges and train drivers shouldn't have SPAD's, both could result in a loss of life.

I would assume lorry drivers are prosecuted, or at least given a fixed penalty notice, for hitting bridges?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

What do you have in mind?

Incidentally, I don't think anyone is calling for hanging the driver, rather that his company take more responsibility, including the full cost of the incident.

And points on his license etc.

There is also confusion here between prosecution for lack of care and civil damages. Someone has to pay for the bridge damage and that should be the lorry driver or his company (or their insurance) as a civil matter. Of course, also the driver ought to be prosecuted for undue care etc ...

This - precisely​

 

[43096]

A mistake is made when a driver goes under a low bridge, it is no more or less of a mistake than a driver having a spad, caused by a momentary less of concentration, if anything there is less excuse for a spads.

So presumably you view a lorry/bus/car/whatever putting its front wheels over the white line at traffic lights as a SPAD? Because that is what it is. 1 foot beyond a signal on the railway and it's a SPAD.

 

[philthetube]

So presumably you view a lorry/bus/car/whatever putting its front wheels over the white line at traffic lights as a SPAD? Because that is what it is. 1 foot beyond a signal on the railway and it's a SPAD.

no, I would put that on a level with passing a stopping mark on a platform by 1 foot, and incedentally I would be surprised if many signals passed by 1 foot are reported, even though I agree that they are spads.

However that is by the way, the main point of my argument is that considerable efforts are made to reduce spads while very few are made to reduce bridge strikes, surely this makes no sense. Both can be very disruptive and dangerous for the railway.

 

[jopsuk]

I'd cheerfully wire up every set of traffic lights with red light cameras and fine/points everyone stopping 30cm over. I was taught to stop with the line still visible.
I'm also in favour of making 12 points be a hard limit.

Yes, there would a spike in people getting fixed penalty notices, and even a spike in bans, but I think people would get the message soon enough.

 

[43096]

no, I would put that on a level with passing a stopping mark on a platform by 1 foot, and incedentally I would be surprised if many signals passed by 1 foot are reported, even though I agree that they are spads.

If the train activates the next track circuit then it will be reported - it's a zero tolerance issue.

 

[b0b]

A nice example from the US of how well a strong steel bar in front of a railway bridge works ....

http://11foot8.com

 

[philthetube]

If the train activates the next track circuit then it will be reported - it's a zero tolerance issue.

100% correct, but not many track circuits are so tight.

Anyway, to put the point I am trying to make another way, in order to avoid tangents;-

If a signal is multi spadded then all sort of actions will be taken both to establish why and to prevent it happening in the future, the same does not appear to be true concerning bridge strikes despite them both having the potential to be equally serious to the railway.

 

[Antman]

This is by no means a recent phenomenon, I stumbled across this photo from the 1970s in Croydon, the bridge has long since been demolished to make way for Tramlink.

 

[najaB]

I vaguely memember, possibly on here, someone trying to justify ignoring the height warning signs on the basis that they were generally too conservative and his own judgement was superior.

I'm not going to name names, but take a look in this thread if you want to refresh your memory.

 

[talltim]

On the railways the industry takes many measures to ensure trains don’t go where they don’t fit. The road industry seems to take no measures at all

 

[driver_m]

100% correct, but not many track circuits are so tight.

Anyway, to put the point I am trying to make another way, in order to avoid tangents;-

If a signal is multi spadded then all sort of actions will be taken both to establish why and to prevent it happening in the future, the same does not appear to be true concerning bridge strikes despite them both having the potential to be equally serious to the railway.

It's not the track circuits that are the catcher so much any more, it's the TSS balises which have no slack in them at all. End of the day, it's not a fair comparison, a spad and a bridge bash. Maybe a buffer stop collision is a fairer one as you can't "technically bash" a truck into a bridge in the way you can have a "technical spad" caused by a signal reversion. Certainly no fan of trucks but I'd imagine having a bridge bash should be seen as pretty shameful in the truck community if such a think exists and a good deterrent not to have one .

 

[Lucan]

the trouble [with a steel bridge protector before the bridge] is on an arched bridge where you could loose 1/3 the height available if you take it back to the lowest point over the road

I don't see a problem. You would have a basic "goal post" at the nominal height of the bridge, plus two short beams diagonally across the upper corners to mimic the arch, with their inner ends at the width of that nominal height (ie where low arched bridges have width markers painted on them now). The structure would need to be fairly close to the bridge so a max height lorry cannot change course very much after it.

The steel protector does not need to be the precise shape of the arch. It just needs to be shape that is totally circumscribed by the arch shape. If that ends up being a bit more restrictive than at present then so be it.

 

[Antman]

On the railways the industry takes many measures to ensure trains don’t go where they don’t fit. The road industry seems to take no measures at all

That's not really comparing like with like with like. Some bridges have protective beams, some have electronic beams which illuminated an overheight vehicle sign if broken. What more can realistically be done?

 

[Jonny]

That's not really comparing like with like with like. Some bridges have protective beams, some have electronic beams which illuminated an overheight vehicle sign if broken. What more can realistically be done?

In the short term, more training and awareness and warning systems in the cab...

Even better an automated emergency braking (AEB) system that can tell a truck cannot fit and cause it to brake in time.

 

[Antman]

In the short term, more training and awareness and warning systems in the cab...

Even better an automated emergency braking (AEB) system that can tell a truck cannot fit and cause it to brake in time.

We've got more than enough training as it is and the CPC course has created such a shortage of drivers that employers can't afford to be selective about who they employ, it's a vicious circle.

 

[Kettledrum]

I work near a low bridge that was always being hit - despite having flashing warning signs before the bridge too . Last year the Council installed a height barrier with chains hanging down 50 yards in front of the bridge. I still see lots of high vehicles trying to go under and hitting the chains. However this makes such a noise and acts as a wake up call for the drivers. I have seen plenty of drivers who hit the chains, but they always stop and then reverse after hitting the chains, thereby avoiding a bridge strike. This has been incredibly effective.

 

[najaB]

We've got more than enough training as it is and the CPC course has created such a shortage of drivers that employers can't afford to be selective about who they employ, it's a vicious circle.

I suspect it's not your intention, but that reads as "Well, you've got to accept dangerous drivers because there aren't enough of them."

 

[Antman]

I suspect it's not your intention, but that reads as "Well, you've got to accept dangerous drivers because there aren't enough of them."

In a nutshell that is the reality although obviously drivers convicted of serious misdemeanours will no longer have a license.

 

[ainsworth74]

In a nutshell that is the reality although obviously drivers convicted of serious misdemeanours will no longer have a license.

I'm not sure that that's actually a good enough excuse for the haulage industry to just shrug their shoulders and go "not my problem guv"! If the requirements of holding a CPC are reducing the available pool of drivers then the solution isn't just to recruit anyone who happens to have the right paperwork. The solution is to start paying for drivers to get CPCs! The idea that a haulage firm could have a candidate who is perfect in every way but is rejected because they don't have a CPC and the firm won't pay to get one is crackers surely? I can't think of a single other industry involving people in charge of vehicles where it would be considered acceptable to lower standards due to a lack of recruits because a company wasn't willing to pay to train their recruits. Any firm that did do so would likely find themselves fined and prosecuted out of existence rapidly!

I really do hope that if the haulage industry won't improve their standards and practises by themselves that legislation and regulation will do it for them. Another one that seems stunning is that haulage companies can get away with providing regular SatNav's rather than ones specifically intended for tall vehicles. Or even worse just not providing them at all and asking drivers to use Google Maps! Another one where if they won't do it themselves hopefully regulations can be brought to force them to.

I just find it stunning that the way the haulage industry is allowed to show a complete lack of due diligence regarding this issue.

All that being said I do think that Network Rail could probably do more at bridges that are at risk. Fixed bars prior to the bridge itself, better signage, dangling chains to brush cabs/roofs of vehicles, etc. It definetly needs to be a joint effort to reduce this scourge but the main problem, it seems to me, lies with the haulage industry not the rail industry and simply saying "well, that's just the way it is" is not sufficient.

@Jack15001 My rant should not be taken to be aimed at you personally but the haulage companies!

 

[talltim]

That's not really comparing like with like with like. Some bridges have protective beams, some have electronic beams which illuminated an overheight vehicle sign if broken. What more can realistically be done?

Well the railway has full route availability records (in theory) and certain stock is not allowed on certain routes (think 9’6” containers for example). A vehicle is not cleared for a route unless it has been checked. Also it has made sure that drivers have route knowledge and if they do get routed wrongly they pretty much always stop before it is an issue. Yes, it does go wrong occasionally (thinking of that container train that hit a station canopy as an example), but the industry has at leas made an effort to minimise it.
To use your example, if every bridge lower than maximum lorry height had the full lights and whistles fitted then the road industry could maybe have said to have made a similar effort

 

[Antman]

I'm not sure that that's actually a good enough excuse for the haulage industry to just shrug their shoulders and go "not my problem guv"! If the requirements of holding a CPC are reducing the available pool of drivers then the solution isn't just to recruit anyone who happens to have the right paperwork. The solution is to start paying for drivers to get CPCs! The idea that a haulage firm could have a candidate who is perfect in every way but is rejected because they don't have a CPC and the firm won't pay to get one is crackers surely? I can't think of a single other industry involving people in charge of vehicles where it would be considered acceptable to lower standards due to a lack of recruits because a company wasn't willing to pay to train their recruits. Any firm that did do so would likely find themselves fined and prosecuted out of existence rapidly!

I really do hope that if the haulage industry won't improve their standards and practises by themselves that legislation and regulation will do it for them. Another one that seems stunning is that haulage companies can get away with providing regular SatNav's rather than ones specifically intended for tall vehicles. Or even worse just not providing them at all and asking drivers to use Google Maps! Another one where if they won't do it themselves hopefully regulations can be brought to force them to.

I just find it stunning that the way the haulage industry is allowed to show a complete lack of due diligence regarding this issue.

All that being said I do think that Network Rail could probably do more at bridges that are at risk. Fixed bars prior to the bridge itself, better signage, dangling chains to brush cabs/roofs of vehicles, etc. It definetly needs to be a joint effort to reduce this scourge but the main problem, it seems to me, lies with the haulage industry not the rail industry and simply saying "well, that's just the way it is" is not sufficient.

@Jack15001 My rant should not be taken to be aimed at you personally but the haulage companies!

Absolutely, no offence taken and you do make some good points but I genuinely struggle to see what more the haulage industry can be doing. We're not talking about anything complex here, if the height in the cab is greater than the height on the bridge it's not going to fit but how do you legislate for human error? And I'm not making excuses for hitting low bridges. Should a driver lose their licence? Possibly but hitting a bridge is likely to be such a traumatic experience it's unlikely they'll make the same mistake again. I think many companies leave it up to drivers regarding sat navs, some like them and some prefer to use the good old fashioned road atlas. Warning devices are probably not fool proof and could lull a driver into a false sense of security, ie the warning didn't sound so the bridge must be ok..........BANG!

 

[AndrewE]

To use your example, if every bridge lower than maximum lorry height had the full lights and whistles fitted then the road industry could maybe have said to have made a similar effort

Except that's not the road industry, that's the rest of us making the effort and paying for it.
The road (haulage) industry has easy answers in the form of professional Satnavs that take account of bridge heights etc. The trouble is that the financial structure of the industry with "self-employed" drivers pushes the costs down onto bit-part players who are going to try to avoid any costs that they can.
The answer has got to include 1) chasing the actual haulage arranger for all the costs of a bridge bash (and limiting the amount that they can claim off their insurance, as it is paid by the rest of us) and
2) going after them in the courts for not equipping their staff with suitable and sufficient equipment to allow the job to be done safely.
The 2 things above, together with making company directors personally liable would concentrate their minds.

If hauliers with low standards were forced out of business it would probably reduce overall costs all round, and if haulage ended up costing a bit more then that would be no bad thing either, because it would make firms reconsider how much they needed to use it, also benefit the manufacturing firms maintaining local employment.