Drunk drivers don’t want to crash. But like dodgy hauliers they don’t think it will happen to them
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Container lorry brings services to a halt
- Thread starter Edders23
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
jfowkes
Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 884
Well, what solutions are they suggesting? What's coming from within the industry to do reduce the rate and severity of bridge strikes?
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,575
Four more to go before the day ends. Never mind, it's only human error. A similar strike rate on the railways would see the entire network shut down until a solution was found, but then that is the railway where safety matters.
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,575
A big fat nothing! Just like the great wheel loss "mystery" where wheels come loose off HGVs, crash into other road users at speed and kill them.
The attitude of the industy "Sh"t happens".
Accidents do happen every day and bridge strikes are just a small part of it. Not much point keep moaning about it though unless you've got any workable solutions.
You have been given workable solutions for risk reduction. You just don’t want them.
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,575
..................because they cost the road haulage industry money, and money is king in that industry NOT safety.
Anyway, I'm out, no point in talking to road haulage people about improving safety unless you offer to pay the bills for them.
Just hilarious. Hauliers minds are focused, I repeat....... they don't want their lorries hitting bridges anymore than NR do.
Link here to today's incident in Homerton. The bridge in question has reportedly been hit 17 times in a year, today by a rigid vehicle with presumably the height displayed in the cab.
https://www-standard-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/london/low-bridge-struck-by-seventeen-lorries-in-a-year-gets-cctv-cameras-a3156286.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&&usqp=mq331AQCKAE=#aoh=15790132179316&referrer=https://www.google.com&_tf=From %1$s&share=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/low-bridge-struck-by-seventeen-lorries-in-a-year-gets-cctv-cameras-a3156286.html
https://www-standard-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/london/low-bridge-struck-by-seventeen-lorries-in-a-year-gets-cctv-cameras-a3156286.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&&usqp=mq331AQCKAE=#aoh=15790132179316&referrer=https://www.google.com&_tf=From %1$s&share=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/low-bridge-struck-by-seventeen-lorries-in-a-year-gets-cctv-cameras-a3156286.html
Last edited by a moderator:
TrafficEng
Member
Same bridge it would appear, but that article is 4 years old (just happens to be 14th January as well).
Interesting history at this location. The signed bridge height used to be 11'9". Then it became 11'6". Now 11'3". All in the space of around 10 years. Not in the least bit confusing.
The article notes -
"Transport for London blames the crashes on drivers relying on out-of-date satnav systems that send them through Kenworthy Road in Homerton."
Which reinforces the point I made yesterday about the devices only being as good as the data in them.
silverfoxcc
Member
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 439
You could put a million zillion ounds excess on the insurance but it isn't the lass in the office that is doing the damage. The sooner the various authorities Councils HA TOC/NR realise there is a cheaper and more effective way of reducing these hits by way height restrictors sited in advance of every low height bridge, and a compulsory ban and retest on DRIVERS..not hauliers each time one of them is hit it will carry on, but why bother going to all that trouble eh? Just suck up the delays and repairs, it doesn't happen every day does it?????????
TrafficEng quotes
The article notes -
"Transport for London blames the crashes on drivers relying on out-of-date satnav systems that send them through Kenworthy Road in Homerton."
I have had several sat navs and as yet not one gives a height of bridges option
TrafficEng quotes
The article notes -
"Transport for London blames the crashes on drivers relying on out-of-date satnav systems that send them through Kenworthy Road in Homerton."
I have had several sat navs and as yet not one gives a height of bridges option
Oops I didn't notice the year. There does seem to be a trend of lowering clearances, whether it's due to any resurfacing or just to allow a bigger margin for error I don't know. Yes Satnavs are only as good as the person using them.
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,575
So one immediate additional safety measure which would reduce, not eliminate, accidents would be the fitting of a HGV quality satnav subject to VOSA check during 12 month test and any routine stops, including a check for being up to date. Add a height measuring device to every non fixed body HGV while you are at it.
TrafficEng
Member
Very good point. There is a parallel between this issue and the Basingstoke incident where repeated false warnings resulted in a safety system being switched off.
People tend to react to annoying false alarms by ignoring them, or disabling the system. So the system then needs to be designed to make that hard to do.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,706
Until the Ordnance Survey provides a free continuously updated sat-nav database, sat nav updates will continue to be a major issue.
I do wonder what the point of having the state pay for a mapping infrastructure is if we aren't even going to yield the obvious benefits from it.
I do wonder what the point of having the state pay for a mapping infrastructure is if we aren't even going to yield the obvious benefits from it.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,706
That will just drive hauliers into bankruptcy, at which point noone pays.
TrafficEng
Member
And would VOSA check include combing through the vehicle's SatNav database to ensure each bridge was correctly recorded, and testing of the routeing algorithm to ensure the device was working correctly?
The answer to that is obviously 'no'. Read the instruction manual and T&Cs of one of those "HGV quality" SatNavs. The driver is warned about not relying on the accuracy of the data.
Several people on this thread have made the (not unreasonable) point that safety standards in the haulage industry need to match those of the railway industry. Similar people (if not the same) have then insisted the solution is the mandatory fitting of a device which is only slightly more sophisticated than a toy.
Could the rail experts please advise whether a safety critical railway system (such as TPWS) can be purchased off the shelf from the equivalent of Halfords, without that device having any certification or even a guarantee from the manufacturer that it will work as expected? No, I thought not.
I know that in reality the equivalent railway (or aviation) system would be designed using standards far in excess of a retail SatNav and consequently come with a pricetag perhaps several orders of magnitude greater than a retail product.
So which is it to be? A cheap box-ticking exercise, or a robust safety improvement?
TrafficEng
Member
Existing bridge clearances change. Roads get resurfaced, structures get altered.
There is no systematic process to ensure those alterations are recorded and fed into updated SatNav databases.
TrafficEng
Member
The OS have developed a product that captures traffic features and is available to commercial partners.
The problem is that the data is captured on the ground based on signage (to the best of my knowledge), rather than capturing data from physical measurement or from legal orders.
So if the bridge is 11'3", but the sign says 11'9" then the database will record that restriction as 11'9" - with obvious potential consequences if the data is relied on for routeing higher vehicles.
Indeed and if you read the previous posts we have already established that.
So? The driver would be able to prove he had taken all reasonable steps and it would be someone else’s fault.
Can you find an example of a bridge being hit that was incorrectly signed?
Chris M
Member
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,575
I believe you have answered your own question in this and other posts.
For a road haulage application, in the eyes of hauliers, supported by government who want cheap haulage, number one will suffice.
For a rail or airline application, where safety comes before price, it would have to be number two.
You really are obsessed with the road haulage industry. Just because a small percentage of drivers (and one is one too many) manage to hit low bridges it doesn't mean that the industry is rotten to the core, in fact safety is higher now than it's ever been but it's never going to be perfect.
Comparisons to the railway and airline industry are ridiculous.
DerekC
Established Member
The problem is that this is an interface between road and rail and rail has to do expensive risk mitigation and stand the financial hit because the standards on road are very different - so it's inevitable that there will be comparisons. It's just that it's unrealistic to expect road to achieve rail levels of compliance in relation to this one issue.
chiltern trev
Member
Another bridge strike this morning - Carlisle station south end. Crown St bridge I believe.
https://www.itv.com/news/border/202...-gets-stuck-under-railway-bridge-in-carlisle/ (article timestamped 11.54am)
Tractor unit cab fits under the bridge just. Trailer is a high sided scrap metal trailer - one of the monster sized ones for moving rubbish in big bulk. Note that double decker buses do not fit and one (not Stagecoach) was deroofed a few years ago. At the moment, the next road bridge across above the railway over the north end of the platforms, Victoria Viaduct, is closed and has been for 2 months or so due to an unsafe building which has now been demolished and Victoria Viaduct is due to reopen soon (weeks) - maybe a contributory factor.
The Network Rail person interviewed on BBC Radio Carlisle this evening said 5 bridge strikes per day average.
Edit - on this approach the bridge has a triangle sign (red border) with 12ft 0 ins. No metric. The first beam which is set back 1-2 ft has black and yellow diagonal paint the full width of the beam (2 lanes and 1 pavement) across it about 9ins high . From Google there appear to be no warning signs on the immediate approach roads and min roundabout about 150m away on this side of the bridge.
https://www.itv.com/news/border/202...-gets-stuck-under-railway-bridge-in-carlisle/ (article timestamped 11.54am)
Tractor unit cab fits under the bridge just. Trailer is a high sided scrap metal trailer - one of the monster sized ones for moving rubbish in big bulk. Note that double decker buses do not fit and one (not Stagecoach) was deroofed a few years ago. At the moment, the next road bridge across above the railway over the north end of the platforms, Victoria Viaduct, is closed and has been for 2 months or so due to an unsafe building which has now been demolished and Victoria Viaduct is due to reopen soon (weeks) - maybe a contributory factor.
The Network Rail person interviewed on BBC Radio Carlisle this evening said 5 bridge strikes per day average.
Edit - on this approach the bridge has a triangle sign (red border) with 12ft 0 ins. No metric. The first beam which is set back 1-2 ft has black and yellow diagonal paint the full width of the beam (2 lanes and 1 pavement) across it about 9ins high . From Google there appear to be no warning signs on the immediate approach roads and min roundabout about 150m away on this side of the bridge.
Last edited:
- Status