Bridge Strikes

HowardGWR · 7 Nov 2015

Peter Mugridge said:
Not if they're programmed by "professionals" who tell them they'll fit under anything because the signs are probably wrong...

*examines coat rack*

I know. Some of the contributions here needed a smiley at the end.

*Already donned my coat and am halfway out the door.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
This one at Northampton today. Will NR send the bill to the company (their insurers of course)? We read of how many tens of thousands these incidents cost but I often wonder -does anyone know for certain?
http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/w..._gen/derivatives/landscape_620/4186881951.jpg

RailUK Forums

Bald Rick · 7 Nov 2015

Yes NR always goes after the insurers.

61653 HTAFC · 7 Nov 2015

It's perhaps worth noting that many large haulage companies (and companies with large fleets of LGVs) self insure, so they'd have to foot the bill themselves.

Jonny · 7 Nov 2015

Chris M said:
I wonder what this driver's excuse is? The visibility looks good and the sign is in both metric and imperial units.
http://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk...rs-as-lorry-gets-stuck-under-bridge-1-7517913

A very lame one, given the red ring (rather than warning triangle) forming the sign; meaning that if he exceeded the stated height and made it through he would still be in trouble for disobeying the sign.

GearJammer · 8 Nov 2015

Jonny said:
A very lame one, given the red ring (rather than warning triangle) forming the sign; meaning that if he exceeded the stated height and made it through he would still be in trouble for disobeying the sign.

But if he makes it through then the sign is proved to be wrong.

And that truck would be 14ft 9.... Give or take a few inches.

ainsworth74 · 8 Nov 2015

GearJammer said:
But if he makes it through then the sign is proved to be wrong.

And that truck would be 14ft 9.... Give or take a few inches.

Surely it doesn't matter? The sign is a prohibition of vehicles over that size as is clearly indicated by the definition of that type of sign in the Highway Code. It isn't saying 'no vehicles over the size but if you fit never mind' it means no vehicles over that size.

I find that attitude somewhat disturbing from a lorry driver...

ian959 · 8 Nov 2015

GearJammer said:
But if he makes it through then the sign is proved to be wrong.

And that truck would be 14ft 9.... Give or take a few inches.

Rubbish. That sign says that no vehicles over the specified height allowed. Makes no difference if the sign is "wrong" as you call it.

Also DAF specifications suggest that the cab height is about 3.36 metres without including the air dam on top - obviously the cab will go under the bridge but the trailer will not, as proven.

Flying Snail · 8 Nov 2015

Maybe he was just dealing with a tailgater, who will be found once the trailer is removed.

jopsuk · 8 Nov 2015

it's less common to do it with height restrictions, but weight, length or width prohibition signs are often used not because of physical limitations but simply to exclude unsuitable vehicles/force large vehicles to stick to larger roads

najaB · 8 Nov 2015

GearJammer said:
But if he makes it through then the sign is proved to be wrong.

Just to be sure, we're talking about the sign pictured in post #301? And you - a professional driver as you like to point out - are saying that it is acceptable to drive past that height prohibition sign in a truck that is taller than the posted limit because it might fit under the bridge?

GearJammer · 9 Nov 2015

ainsworth74 said:
Surely it doesn't matter? The sign is a prohibition of vehicles over that size as is clearly indicated by the definition of that type of sign in the Highway Code. It isn't saying 'no vehicles over the size but if you fit never mind' it means no vehicles over that size.

I find that attitude somewhat disturbing from a lorry driver...

Well why else would a height sign be there?

jopsuk · 9 Nov 2015

to prohibit large vehicles from a road that the highway authority has decided they should not be using, as I said above- though as I already said usually weight, width or length would be used.

EbbwJunction1 · 9 Nov 2015

ComUtoR said:
How many "low" bridges do you have ? How much lorry traffic do you get ? The Tulse Hill bridge is a well worn route.

Well, there's a lot of lorry traffic in and around Newport, as there's still quite a bit of heavy industry to be found if you look hard enough.

I haven't checked everywhere, but I can think of a couple of fairly low bridges on main roads that have all the appropriate signs, but don't seem to be hit. Maybe we are lucky, or the drivers here are better?

GearJammer · 9 Nov 2015

jopsuk said:
to prohibit large vehicles from a road that the highway authority has decided they should not be using, as I said above- though as I already said usually weight, width or length would be used.

And why prohibit a large vehicle from say Tulsehill then, a busy route, or, lets use the one I ignore, the one on the A36, a major A road from Southampton to Bath, why would you ban large vehicles from a main A roaD? To make them use country lanes instead.

carriageline · 9 Nov 2015

GearJammer said:
And why prohibit a large vehicle from say Tulsehill then, a busy route, or, lets use the one I ignore, the one on the A36, a major A road from Southampton to Bath, why would you ban large vehicles from a main A roaD? To make them use country lanes instead.

But how did you FIRST find out you could fit under it?

I do sort of agree, at least make the height restriction right with a % tolerance. Stops people chanceing it

Llanigraham · 9 Nov 2015

GearJammer said:
And why prohibit a large vehicle from say Tulsehill then, a busy route, or, lets use the one I ignore, the one on the A36, a major A road from Southampton to Bath, why would you ban large vehicles from a main A roaD? To make them use country lanes instead.

Because there may be a reason that the local Council have considered. They do not have to provide you with those reasons.

It is not up to YOU to decide that those Rules do not apply to your vehicle.:roll:

GearJammer · 9 Nov 2015

carriageline said:
But how did you FIRST find out you could fit under it?

I do sort of agree, at least make the height restriction right with a % tolerance. Stops people chanceing it

I had been told by my dad (also a truck driver and now passed away), and other drivers that the A36/14ft bridge at Wilton was good for a container truck with a standard height 20/40ft container but not passable with the higher high cube container. So when I had a high cube on I avoided the bridge by using less suitable roads (unsuitable but the only alternative), I carried on under the bridge with standard height boxes.....

It was while using the route with standard boxes i noticed I was passing other trucks who DID have high cube boxes on, I quickly come to the conclusion that these trucks HAD to be going under the bridge as there was nowhere else they could be coming from/going to, having kept an eye on who/what I was passing I worked out I was passing makes/models of wagons/trailers exactly the same as mine. So then it was a waiting game of actually physically watching one pass under, when I did I was quite surprised what I seen, that being a quite distinct gap between bridge and container, with the average slider trailer/high cube combo being 14ft 9 given the gap I seen I would say the bridge is more 15ft 1-15ft 3, having witnessed what I had I took a high cube under, very slow the first time, sure enough, as per all the other trucks before me, it fitted and I've been going that route ever since, however now I just slow to speed that doesn't inconvenience others but keeps the truck stable.

So going back to the poster above, why is that road marked up as 14ft, when the bridge is at the very least 15ft? After all, trucks don't jump, and they don't bounce that much.

ainsworth74 · 9 Nov 2015

Are there any other parts of the Highway Code you ignore as you have decided they don't apply to you?

Oswyntail · 9 Nov 2015

GearJammer said:
....
So going back to the poster above, why is that road marked up as 14ft, when the bridge is at the very least 15ft? After all, trucks don't jump, and they don't bounce that much.

It's called a "margin for error". Given that this thread consists mainly of you confessing to several repeated Road Traffic Offences, I would suggest your own propensity for error might need this sort of thing.

furnessvale · 9 Nov 2015

Oswyntail said:
It's called a "margin for error". Given that this thread consists mainly of you confessing to several repeated Road Traffic Offences, I would suggest your own propensity for error might need this sort of thing.

Lets hope they don't resurface the road or alter the bridge in any way.

Radedamer · 9 Nov 2015

Are you talking about the two bridges in quick succession just north of Salisbury? One of them was rebuilt about 20 years ago; is it possible that the signs for the other one, which was higher than the original of the rebuilt one, were deliberately understated in order to protect the other? If so, have they been resigned? However, I do remember (I used to use that road a lot) the signs were different for each bridge.

GearJammer · 9 Nov 2015

Radedamer said:
Are you talking about the two bridges in quick succession just north of Salisbury?.

Yup, that'll be the ones, new one has never been an issue (I say new, I've never known that one to be any different).
Also, interestingly, the bridge has electronic beams each side of it, funnily enough my truck with a 14ft 9 box on sets these off, in one direction it says 'Overheight vehicle, turn back' when approaching from the other direction it says 'High vehicle, use middle of the road'.

Radedamer · 9 Nov 2015

Well, it was new in about 1995. Thinking about it, the old arched bridge it replaced might not have been lower, but narrower. I do remember there were often queues there waiting for traffic to clear the bridge. There might well have been bridge strikes as well, I don't know.

As to the discrepancy in the electronic beams, I'd guess the road surface has become slightly elevated in one spot, maybe with a new surface. Or else has sunk at the other end. As we're dealing with uneven surfaces and vehicles whose 'dynamic height' will vary with suspension loading, I think it's inevitable and only sensible that signs and regulations will be cautious.

hounddog · 9 Nov 2015

ainsworth74 said:
Are there any other parts of the Highway Code you ignore as you have decided they don't apply to you?

I think you mean 'law' rather than 'highway code'.

najaB · 9 Nov 2015

Indeed that is what it boils down to - a "professional driver" who ignores the laws he doesn't agree with. I wonder what other laws he sees as being in the way?

HowardGWR · 9 Nov 2015

I think Gear Jammer illustrates why there is a total difference between law enforcement on road as opposed to on rail. Imagine a train driver taking such a chance.. The difference is the lack of any possibility of being caught out on road.

You all know that the chance of being caught speeding (or alcohol excess, mobile phone use, tailgating, etc, etc, etc) is practically nil on road. All road traffic ignores the law - all the time.

It's good of Gear Jammer (as he has done previously) to remind us of the realities.

najaB · 9 Nov 2015

HowardGWR said:
You all know that the chance of being caught speeding (or alcohol excess, mobile phone use, tailgating, etc, etc, etc) is practically nil on road.

The thousands of people who are successfully prosecuted every year would tend to indicate that is not the case.

HowardGWR said:
All road traffic ignores the law - all the time.

Hyperbole much?

HowardGWR · 9 Nov 2015

najaB said:
The thousands of people who are successfully prosecuted every year would tend to indicate that is not the case. Hyperbole much?

I'll do 'most' instead of 'all', just to satisfy the hyperbole charge.

'Thousands prosecuted', a very tiny proportion of law breakers.

By the way, see the RAIB report on the Channel lorry fire as a typical illustration of the HGV situation against railway standards of safety. Technically it was the railway worker's fault for not spotting the aerial, but the next time you are out on the road, just see how many HGVs are keeping to 50 mph (a new higher speed limit - and they are already exceeding that

).

edwin_m · 9 Nov 2015

61653 HTAFC said:
It's perhaps worth noting that many large haulage companies (and companies with large fleets of LGVs) self insure, so they'd have to foot the bill themselves.

Even if they don't, a couple of costly actions from NR would do wonders for their premiums.

Cletus · 10 Nov 2015

Today's event.
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/delays-to-trains-after-lorry-46125/

Passengers are facing train delays this morning after a lorry hit a railway bridge.

The HGV became wedged in Gun Lane, Strood, causing problems on the line between Rochester and Sole Street, towards Swanley.

Trains are now running along the line, but long delays are expected. The lorry is still wedged under the bridge and police have closed the road.

One of the comments says:

This bridge has a low bridge detector which in turn displays a huge lit sign that states that the vehicle is overheight and you need to turn around.

Bridge Strikes

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Forum Staff

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member