Container lorry brings services to a halt

14xxDave · 13 Jan 2020

Greenboy said:
If you've hit a bridge you've made a mistake, I'm assuming nobody would do so deliberately. Higher punishments aren't going to prevent human error. Despite all that's been written on the subject in this thread I've not seen any constructive solutions.

I have. Make lorry drivers have to come upto and possibly exceed train driver training and qualification with very regular assessments and instant tea without biscuits if a misdemeanour occurs.

It will never happen, since Marples, the road lobby had a very large sway.

RailUK Forums

Antman · 13 Jan 2020

14xxDave said:
I have. Make lorry drivers have to come upto and possibly exceed train driver training and qualification with very regular assessments and instant tea without biscuits if a misdemeanour occurs.

It will never happen, since Marples, the road lobby had a very large sway.

Honestly the postings on here just get more and more ridiculous.

TrafficEng · 13 Jan 2020

Llanigraham said:
And as was proved at the recent bridge bash by a bus in Swansea, unfortunately fatal.

A bus, not a lorry. Therefore public transport, not 'the road lobby'.

And a fixed-height vehicle with the height prominently displayed in the cab by law, not something the driver had to measure.

Utterly tragic though.

njr001 · 13 Jan 2020

I've reported about a year ago, initially to TFL, a faulty Over Height warning sign permanently flashing amber but not displaying any text at an over bridge which Chiltern trains pass over as well as underground stock, they were not interested as it was outside the London Boroughs, likewise the local County Council have taken no action having had it reported. Should a strike occur one wonders if the driver would have a defence that warning signs were not working correctly.

AndrewE · 13 Jan 2020

14xxDave said:
I have. Make lorry drivers have to come upto and possibly exceed train driver training and qualification with very regular assessments and instant tea without biscuits if a misdemeanour occurs.
It will never happen, since Marples, the road lobby had a very large sway.

Agreed, and by most open-minded people...

Greenboy said:
Honestly the postings on here just get more and more ridiculous.

Why? Have you got a good reason why road freight transport shouldn't be expected to be a bit safer (given that most of the deaths it causes are to other people?)
And that it kills infinitely more people than rail (and buses) most years...

HowardGWR · 13 Jan 2020

Greenboy said:
Honestly the postings on here just get more and more ridiculous.

This seems to be your style. Unless you justify what you state with an explanation it is, I am afraid, your one-liners that earn such criticism.

TrafficEng · 13 Jan 2020

njr001 said:
Should a strike occur one wonders if the driver would have a defence that warning signs were not working correctly.

Good question. In civil law there are cases (e.g. Lavis v Kent CC (1994)) that suggest councils don't need to do more than suggested by the Traffic Signs Manual, but if they do things but do them improperly then they can be jointly liable (e.g. Prynn v Cornwall CC (1995)).

If there were a claim for damages case law suggests the council might be held jointly liable because they had at one point decided the additional sign was necessary, but had not maintained it in working condition. It could be more interesting if they had decided the sign was no longer needed but hadn't taken action to remove it. Furthermore, if the sign isn't in the Regulations then it should have special authorisation and that authorisation might have specific requirements in relation to maintenance. This is exactly the kind of thing the FOI Act was unintentionally designed for.

From a criminal perspective it is harder to say, and possibly will depend on whether the signs on the bridge are warning or prohibitory.

If you feel like sharing more details of the location it would be interesting to see what they have done.

Antman · 13 Jan 2020

HowardGWR said:
This seems to be your style. Unless you justify what you state with an explanation it is, I am afraid, your one-liners that earn such criticism.

I'm still waiting for somebody to come up with a realistic and workable solution.

AndrewE · 13 Jan 2020

Greenboy said:
I'm still waiting for somebody to come up with a realistic and workable solution.

Have you read any of the last few posts?
Why wouldn't mandatory use of a specialist Satnav be "a realistic and workable solution?"

Antman · 13 Jan 2020

AndrewE said:
Have you read any of the last few posts?
Why wouldn't mandatory use of a specialist Satnav be "a realistic and workable solution?"

And if the driver puts the wrong height in we're back to square one, it doesn't eliminate human error.

Elecman · 13 Jan 2020

Edders23 said:
back in the 60's there used to be a national grid transmission line which went across the site of a local brickworks (sadly now a housing estate) one day a crane was brought in for some work being done on the kilns the driver managed to make contact with the transmission line generating so much heat that the tyres melted but amazingly the driver in the cab survived !!

I bet the tyres on that low loader probably prevented it from being a more serious incident

That’s because the enclosed cab formed a Faraday cage keeping the driver safe, it would be very different outcome if he left the cab and touched earth whilst still in close contact with the crane structure

AndrewE · 13 Jan 2020

Greenboy said:
And if the driver puts the wrong height in we're back to square one, it doesn't eliminate human error.

That's not an excuse for doing nothing, and you didn't answer the question. Why wouldn't mandatory use of a specialist Satnav be "a realistic and workable solution?"

If a driver can't make one measurement or input it to the satnav correctly then they shouldn't be driving anyway.
Are you sure you're not just an RHA troll coming here to waste our time? Actually the RHA website says " You have a legal obligation and duty of care to your employees and members of the public to ensure that preventative measures are in place to reduce the likelihood of accidents" so I can't see that you even fit in with their understanding of a "responsible operator"

TrafficEng · 13 Jan 2020

AndrewE said:
Have you read any of the last few posts?
Why wouldn't mandatory use of a specialist Satnav be "a realistic and workable solution?"

Greenboy said:
And if the driver puts the wrong height in we're back to square one, it doesn't eliminate human error.

...and it is only as good as the data it contains (useless if bridge height data isn't systematically updated) so more potential for human error.

More fundamentally the best it can do is provide a warning alert, and with arch bridges it will only alert of the presence of the bridge, not force the driver to use the part of the road where adequare headroom is available.

So in summary - helpful, but only a partial solution. If you are going to the trouble of mandating the use of equipment it needs to be something more effective than a SatNav.

Antman · 13 Jan 2020

AndrewE said:
That's not an excuse for doing nothing, and you didn't answer the question. Why wouldn't mandatory use of a specialist Satnav be "a realistic and workable solution?"

If a driver can't make one measurement or input it to the satnav correctly then they shouldn't be driving anyway.
Are you sure you're not just an RHA troll coming here to waste our time?

What is an RHA troll? Waste our time? How many people do you claim to represent? You're the one wasting time with nonsensical suggestions.

DerekC · 13 Jan 2020

AndrewE said:
Have you read any of the last few posts?
Why wouldn't mandatory use of a specialist Satnav be "a realistic and workable solution?"

It could be part of a solution, but I think the key is to put onus on the haulage company as well as the driver. If the driver makes a mistake, was he/she trained properly? Did she/he have the best equipment to help them avoid mistakes? Those are the kinds of question which the railway industry has to answer - it's not enough just to say that mistakes by the driver will be punished. That's the approach railways had prior to about 1880.

Antman · 13 Jan 2020

TrafficEng said:
...and it is only as good as the data it contains (useless if bridge height data isn't systematically updated) so more potential for human error.

More fundamentally the best it can do is provide a warning alert, and with arch bridges it will only alert of the presence of the bridge, not force the driver to use the part of the road where adequare headroom is available.

So in summary - helpful, but only a partial solution. If you are going to the trouble of mandating the use of equipment it needs to be something more effective than a SatNav.

You've summed it up very well, a lot of money for what is at best a partial solution.

AndrewE · 13 Jan 2020

Greenboy said:
What is an RHA troll? Waste our time? How many people do you claim to represent? You're the one wasting time with nonsensical suggestions.

So you are determined to do nothing then.
I think most people here are vexed by the frquency of bridge bashes, and cannot understand why a tool employing modern software is out of the question for an industry which probably kills more people than any other in the UK today.
Are you and Trafficengineer saying that these things do not route lorries away from roads with bridges lower than teh load that has been programmed in? If so I can see a lot of very expensive claims against the cowboys flogging them...

njr001 · 13 Jan 2020

To answer TrafficEng post#187
Metropolitan Line Road Bridge MR76 A4145 Tolpits Lane, Watford, Westbound direction reported to Hertfordshire County Council 1st January 2019 ref 401000309530

duffield · 13 Jan 2020

Greenboy said:
And if the driver puts the wrong height in we're back to square one, it doesn't eliminate human error.

This is an argument based on the principle that if a solution is less than perfect, then it is worthless. It's known as "The best is the enemy of the good". This is not an attempt to eliminate human error, but to reduce its effects.

If we assume that no driver really wants to hit a bridge, they have an incentive to input the correct height. If they have hit a bridge in the past and got a severe talking to, been disciplined or been dismissed because they have cost the company money (out of their company bond or due to increased insurance premiums) they will have an extra incentive to input the correct height.

It being compulsory to use a proper HGV satnav with height warnings would be bound to have *some* effect on bridge strikes, surely, even if drivers only input the correct height 90% of the time, that would result in a considerable reduction in bridge strikes, due to drivers (presumably) getting something like a big red flashing 'no entry' indication on the satnav for unsuitable routes?

Let's put it another way: Do you really think that it's appropriate for an HGV driver or a haulage firm to use a satnav that will definitely suggest unsuitable routes, due to it being designed for cars? As opposed to using a specialist satnav that will almost never suggest an unsuitable route unless you input the wrong height?

TrafficEng · 14 Jan 2020

duffield said:
...that would result in a considerable reduction in bridge strikes, due to drivers (presumably) getting something like a big red flashing 'no entry' indication on the satnav for unsuitable routes?

Have you investigated what the model of SatNav being promoted by AndrewE actually does, rather than presuming what it might do?

The instruction manual is available online, for free. I would respectfully suggest the people advocating this device as a possible solution to the issue of bridge strikes probably haven't read it, nor studied the technical specs, or read the T&Cs.

However, it does provide an interesting way of bypassing the French ban on devices that warn you about speed cameras and will automatically switch to that mode as you enter France. That functionality might be the basis for giving general warnings about low bridges in the area.

Other more suitable devices might be developed in the future, but criticising drivers and/or hauliers for not having one in every lorry cab today is a bit unfair.

Meerkat · 14 Jan 2020

Greenboy said:
If you've hit a bridge you've made a mistake, I'm assuming nobody would do so deliberately. Higher punishments aren't going to prevent human error. Despite all that's been written on the subject in this thread I've not seen any constructive solutions.

Higher punishments incentivise taking precautions.
Pre harsh punishments plenty of people probably thought “Dunno how much I had last night, sure I will be fine though...”
In the finance industry massive fines for banks mean they threaten their staff with disciplinary action if they don’t complete endless training and follow strict procedures. Mistakes still happen, but if you didn’t follow procedure and do the right checks......

Chris M · 14 Jan 2020

TrafficEng said:
It is an interesting idea, and technology certainly has a part to play. But I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on the effectiveness of relying on a sign recognition system if you were approaching the north side of the bridge here: 53.360440, -2.037280

Certainly anywhere there is a rail/road interface. But I doubt ORR would accept a system which relies on recognition of something which may or may not be there and/or visible at the critical time.

More likely some form of GPS driven warning device (not a Sat Nav) that responds in a certain way if the vehicle enters a geo-fenced area. But unlike TPWS (where it is always safe for a train to be forced to a standstill) there would be scenarios where it wasn't safe to automatically stop a road vehicle (unless all road vehicles are fitted with a connected system £££££). This approach would also be ineffective in the case of arched bridges where it is completely safe to pass through them at the speed limit for the road if you are in the correct position, but a strike can happen (at any speed) if you are too near the kerb.

Systems that warn of low bridges exist, London's iBus system includes one iirc. The problem is excessive irrelevant warnings - for example warnings of low bridges on side streets when you are driving on a main road. If the main road is parallel to a low viaduct then there can be as many warnings as side streets, none of them relevant. Drivers just get habituated to ignoring the warnings.
Bow bus garage (street view) might be particularly bad for this - it is adjacent to a low bridge (13' 6"), and so every double decker bus based there has to head straight towards a bridge lower than the bus, beyond the last side road before the bridge, before turning in to the garage.

Antman · 14 Jan 2020

Meerkat said:
Higher punishments incentivise taking precautions.
Pre harsh punishments plenty of people probably thought “Dunno how much I had last night, sure I will be fine though...”
In the finance industry massive fines for banks mean they threaten their staff with disciplinary action if they don’t complete endless training and follow strict procedures. Mistakes still happen, but if you didn’t follow procedure and do the right checks......

Higher punishments do nothing to prevent mistakes.......... next bright idea?

Meerkat · 14 Jan 2020

Greenboy said:
Higher punishments do nothing to prevent mistakes.......... next bright idea?

You are a real charmer aren’t you!
Higher punishments concentrate the mind. Then you measure your truck properly, make sure you have that in view in the cab, check your route before you leave, and train yourself to double check every bridge height as you go.
“Mistakes happen” just isn’t good enough when people’s lives are at stake. Do you think the airline industry works like that? Do you reckon that Iranian missile commander’s boss is saying “no worries mate, mistakes happen”.

Antman · 14 Jan 2020

Meerkat said:
You are a real charmer aren’t you!
Higher punishments concentrate the mind. Then you measure your truck properly, make sure you have that in view in the cab, check your route before you leave, and train yourself to double check every bridge height as you go.
“Mistakes happen” just isn’t good enough when people’s lives are at stake. Do you think the airline industry works like that? Do you reckon that Iranian missile commander’s boss is saying “no worries mate, mistakes happen”.

Let's get real eh? There is a series shortage of lorry drivers as it is and introducing draconian punishments for making mistakes is only going to make that situation worse and it's not just lorries either, double decker buses also hit low bridges and one did so recently with tragic consequences. Obviously nobody should hit low bridges but most road accidents tend to be the result of human error on somebody's part. Now if you have a solution to such problems I'm sure we'd all like to hear but if you're going to continue making silly remarks don't expect any further response from me.

Meerkat · 14 Jan 2020

Greenboy said:
Let's get real eh? There is a series shortage of lorry drivers as it is and introducing draconian punishments for making mistakes is only going to make that situation worse and it's not just lorries either, double decker buses also hit low bridges and one did so recently with tragic consequences. Obviously nobody should hit low bridges but most road accidents tend to be the result of human error on somebody's part. Now if you have a solution to such problems I'm sure we'd all like to hear but if you're going to continue making silly remarks don't expect any further response from me.

So the answer to a lack of drivers is to reduce standards? Blimey.
I don’t think police accept the “it was just a mistake” any more - that is complacency without solutions. Hence the change from RTA to RTC.
I have solutions, both technical (sign recognition cameras), and procedural (driver duty to confirm lorry height).

AM9 · 14 Jan 2020

Greenboy said:
Higher punishments do nothing to prevent mistakes.......... next bright idea?

More probability of punshment does though, maybe not with those that shouldn't be there anyway, but they can be removed from the food chain to prevent further incidents.

talltim · 14 Jan 2020

You really don’t seem to get it. The idea it to reduce (not remove, which is impossible) the chance of human error occurring and hopefully reduce the effects if it does.
By your logic no safety measures should ever be made because human error.
The answer to a lack of drivers isn’t to ignore safety, it’s to make the job more attractive.

hwl · 14 Jan 2020

talltim said:
You really don’t seem to get it. The idea it to reduce (not remove, which is impossible) the chance of human error occurring and hopefully reduce the effects if it does.
By your logic no safety measures should ever be made because human error.
The answer to a lack of drivers isn’t to ignore safety, it’s to make the job more attractive.

Known in safety jargon as ALARP - As Low As Reasonably Practical, the current situation isn't!

Antman · 14 Jan 2020

talltim said:
You really don’t seem to get it. The idea it to reduce (not remove, which is impossible) the chance of human error occurring and hopefully reduce the effects if it does.
By your logic no safety measures should ever be made because human error.
The answer to a lack of drivers isn’t to ignore safety, it’s to make the job more attractive.

It's you that doesn't seem to get it. Bus and lorry operators don't want their vehicles hitting bridges anymore than NR do. Despite all the rhetoric on here nobody has offered anything viable.

Container lorry brings services to a halt

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member