Bridge Strikes

[mac]

You obviously don't work on the railway!!

Why would you say that?

 

[Minilad]

Why would you say that?

Because signals can go back to red on a driver. I know I have had it happen to me on a few occasions. And when you are doing 100+ it is time to evaluate your underwear cleanliness situation

 

[najaB]

No, I really don't think I do!

"I comply with the signs I want to, and ignore the ones I don't." doesn't come across as professional, at least not to me.

 

[GB]

Word it how you like, I drove past a sign that I knew to be wrong, I drove my truck under a bridge that it fitted under.

How did you know it was wrong the first time you went passed it?

I bet your one of those that also ignore the "Not Suitable for HGVs" signs even though it may be technically possible to get your truck through.

 

[jopsuk]

Word it how you like, I drove past a sign that I knew to be wrong, I drove my truck under a bridge that it fitted under.

How did you know it would fit?

 

[CLH]

The signs would not be wrong - whenever a sign on the road seems to underestimate the height of the bridge, that's because it isn't telling you how high the bridge is - it's telling you the maximum height that your vehicle could be in order to not have a chance of striking the bridge.

If the signs just measured the height of the bridge - and that happened to be about the same as your vehicle - driving quickly across a little bump in the road could make you hit the bridge. You might only skim it but you are putting the safety of trains at risk.

 

[deltic1989]

How did you know it would fit?

In a word experience. No-one, but no-one will get into a vehicle and drive it without first knowing exactly where it begins and ends. Experience, also teaches you to size up any opening and know if your vehicle will fit through it. If not, you stop, if so carry on.

I don't personally have the time at this point but if I did I could write an extensive list (a book really), on the amount of bridges that either a) Have damaged or otherwise illegible signage b) Have little or no signage (despite being lower than 16'6") c) Have incorrect signage.

One of my own experiences is approaching a bridge that the signs claimed was 15'9", with a 15'6" trailer. When the bridge came into view, everything in me screamed STOP!!!!!!!, and its a good thing I did as upon closer inspection my 15'6" trailer was proud of the lower extremity of the supposedly 15'9" bridge by a good 3 or 4".
Had that same situation occurred in my first week behind the wheel, I would have probably carried on. I would invite anyone to suggest how an incident in those circumstances would be my fault. Do I deserve to loose my livelihood because some dolt with a Hi-Viz and a clipboard can't use a tape measure?

It does somewhat make me laugh however. I get that this is a railway forum and there inevitably will be a distinct pro-railway undertone.
However, were this a thread casting aspersions on the professionalism of Train Drivers, there would be a metaphorical lynch mob at the OP's door.
But since it's only Truck Drivers being slammed here, that's absolutely fine. It's not like you would have an empty house without us or anything.

 

[455driver]

Yes, that's it, najaB. Thanks!
Put some of those in. You'd think twice about driving your truck through the actual sign, wouldn't you?

Gear jammer would drive through it because he knows his truck would fit!:roll:

 

[najaB]

In a word experience. No-one, but no-one will get into a vehicle and drive it without first knowing exactly where it begins and ends. Experience, also teaches you to size up any opening and know if your vehicle will fit through it. If not, you stop, if so carry on.

For the record, I have no issue with a driver using his experience to determine if their vehicle will or will not be able to pass an obstruction. However, unless I'm mistaken a height restriction sign is red and round, and round red signs indicate prohibitions.

To say that you knowingly disobey a sign because you know better doesn't, to me at least, display a professional attitude.

 

[455driver]

Yes, that's it, najaB. Thanks!
Put some of those in. You'd think twice about driving your truck through the actual sign, wouldn't you?

Gear jammer would drive through it because he knows his truck would fit!:roll:

Deltic 1989, if it is true that no lorry driver would ever drive a vehicle that they didn't know the size of, why do so many if them hit bridges where 99% of those bridges are correctly signed and aremarked to be lower than the lorry?

 

[Barn]

Talking of bridge strikes, I have to confess that I find www.11foot8.com strangely compelling.

 

[Olympian]

Deleted

 

[deltic1989]

For the record, I have no issue with a driver using his experience to determine if their vehicle will or will not be able to pass an obstruction. However, unless I'm mistaken a height restriction sign is red and round, and round red signs indicate prohibitions.

To say that you knowingly disobey a sign because you know better doesn't, to me at least, display a professional attitude.

I agree that, where the signage is circular, this conveys a prohibition. That is to say that it is illegal for a vehicle above the height stated to pass that sign.

However there are a majority of signs (in my own experiance anyway), that are Triangular. Triangular signs convey a warning. To the best of my knowledge it is not illegal to disregard these warnings, just ill advised. That is unless you know the warning to be incorrect.

 

[najaB]

However there are a majority of signs (in my own experiance anyway), that are Triangular. Triangular signs convey a warning. To the best of my knowledge it is not illegal to disregard these warnings, just ill advised. That is unless you know the warning to be incorrect.

The example given above (post #4) has circular signs and has reportedly been hit multiple times.

 

[Esker-pades]

Rubbish!!
All bridges have a sign on their approach and any driver who can't read the signs needs taking off the road immediately.
Some might be accidents, but I can assure that a common response when asked is "Oh I thought I might make it!". I know that locally drivers have been prosecuted with Due Care and Attention charges and have lost their licences.
The more NR start not only claiming for the costs of the repairs but also for the Delay Payments caused the better. A claim for several hundred thousand pounds might make them sit up and pay attention.

"Due Care" being the ironic name of one of the drivers :P .

 

[GearJammer]

In a word experience. No-one, but no-one will get into a vehicle and drive it without first knowing exactly where it begins and ends. Experience, also teaches you to size up any opening and know if your vehicle will fit through it. If not, you stop, if so carry on.

I don't personally have the time at this point but if I did I could write an extensive list (a book really), on the amount of bridges that either a) Have damaged or otherwise illegible signage b) Have little or no signage (despite being lower than 16'6") c) Have incorrect signage.

One of my own experiences is approaching a bridge that the signs claimed was 15'9", with a 15'6" trailer. When the bridge came into view, everything in me screamed STOP!!!!!!!, and its a good thing I did as upon closer inspection my 15'6" trailer was proud of the lower extremity of the supposedly 15'9" bridge by a good 3 or 4".
Had that same situation occurred in my first week behind the wheel, I would have probably carried on. I would invite anyone to suggest how an incident in those circumstances would be my fault. Do I deserve to loose my livelihood because some dolt with a Hi-Viz and a clipboard can't use a tape measure?

It does somewhat make me laugh however. I get that this is a railway forum and there inevitably will be a distinct pro-railway undertone.
However, were this a thread casting aspersions on the professionalism of Train Drivers, there would be a metaphorical lynch mob at the OP's door.
But since it's only Truck Drivers being slammed here, that's absolutely fine. It's not like you would have an empty house without us or anything.

Well said, but for the record (and no offence meant) you may as well have just gone and said it to a brick wall, this lot will always think they know better, they drive cars, they think they drive perfectly, and think they know the ins and outs of driving a truck.

 

[455driver]

Do us all a favour and go drive under a low bridge will ya!
Why are you on a rail forum anyway, surely you would be better off on 'burly truckers' or a similar site!

 

[GearJammer]

Do us all a favour and go drive under a low bridge will ya!
Why are you on a rail forum anyway, surely you would be better off on 'burly truckers' or a similar site!

Tried it, 14ft 9 truck under a 14ft bridge........ nothing happened!

 

[90019]

However, unless I'm mistaken a height restriction sign is red and round, and round red signs indicate prohibitions.

Unless they're faded and unreadable, or even missing, but nobody seems to be bothered because they all drive under there in cars, so why would you even need those signs there, since obviously a car will never be tall enough to hit it?

Of course, complaining about it makes sod all difference, and it takes something like a bridge strike before anyone bothers to fix the problem.



There's a sometimes alarming lack of understanding of large vehicles and how they have to use the roads shown by a far too large proportion of car drivers.

 

[najaB]

Well said, but for the record (and no offence meant) you may as well have just gone and said it to a brick wall, this lot will always think they know better, they drive cars, they think they drive perfectly, and think they know the ins and outs of driving a truck.

I'm not putting all truck drivers into the same basket as I have no doubt that the vast majority of you are totally competent and professional, but the report quoted in the OP states that in the last year over 1600 vehicles and bridges came together, and I'm pretty sure that most of the time the bridge wasn't the moving object.

 

[90019]

I'm not putting all truck drivers into the same basket as I have no doubt that the vast majority of you are totally competent, but the report quoted in the OP states that in the last year over 1600 vehicles and bridges came together, and I'm pretty sure that most of the time the bridge wasn't the moving object.

I'm intrigued to know how many of them were actually HGVs, and how many were other vehicle types.
Is there any data available for this?

 

[najaB]

I'm intrigued to know how many of them were actually HGVs, and how many were other vehicle types.
Is there any data available for this?

As you said above, the majority will be HGVs, buses or other commercial vehicles as cars are, for the most part, too low to hit them.

 

[90019]

As you said above, the majority will be HGVs, buses or other commercial vehicles as cars are, for the most part, too low to hit them.

Granted, but presumably not all of them are from tall vehicles colliding with the top of the structure, and some will be collisions with the sides, which could be anything.

 

[najaB]

Granted, but presumably not all of them are from tall vehicles colliding with the top of the structure, and some will be collisions with the sides, which could be anything.

Page six of this presentation gives some idea of the breakdown. I think they are only counting instances where the bridge deck is involved.

Edited to fix link.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Perhaps my suggestion that a bridge strike should lead to a lifetime ban for offending drivers was a little harsh... On balance, all drivers should get one "chance" but a second strike should result in a ban, simply because if you're stupid enough to do it twice you shouldn't be in charge of 38tons of moving metal.

 

[GearJammer]

Perhaps my suggestion that a bridge strike should lead to a lifetime ban for offending drivers was a little harsh... On balance, all drivers should get one "chance" but a second strike should result in a ban, simply because if you're stupid enough to do it twice you shouldn't be in charge of 38tons of moving metal.

Or even 44 tonnes eh.....

 

[341o2]

it would be interesting to know how many bridge strikes are caused by British drivers, and by those from other countries, such as from the EU who may not be familiar with imperial measurments

Maybe something similar to the old style lading guages at railway freight yards? One still stands folornly at Totton, the yard having been cleared and developed. something set to the same height as the bridge to sound a warning in advance

The bridge at Ampress just outside Lymington is one that sees strikes on a regular basis

 

[najaB]

it would be interesting to know how many bridge strikes are caused by British drivers, and by those from other countries, such as from the EU who may not be familiar with imperial measurments...

The proposal linked by the OP is to ban height/width restriction signs that don't have metric measurements for precisely this reason.

 

[jopsuk]

That's not quite what it says- not a "ban" as such- the proposal in the TSRGD is that any new sign must have both measurements on it. It explicitly does not require existing signs to be replaced unless life expired.

 

[ian959]

Or even 44 tonnes eh.......

What difference does tonnage make? It is height that matters and if the sign says 14 feet, and the truck is 14' 6" in height then it is not exactly the height of responsibility and professionalism to test that. Frankly if someone is the sort of person to test it then perhaps being banned from the roads is not exactly a bad thing, since it would raise questions as to what else they may do on the roads because they feel like ignoring signs or traffic lights.