Bridge Strikes

[richw]

Bridge strike at Tulse Hill today, via @internetben on twitter:

https://twitter.com/InternetBen/status/641549345918197760

Notable that this one of the bridges at the top of NR's list. What more can be done to protect it?

That one is only an inch or two too high. Measurement issue either truck or bridge? Road being resurfaced could make a few inches difference,

 

[Haydn1971]

My solution has always been simple - heavy gauge steel portal each side of low bridges and a huge fine for anyone hitting the portal to fund more portals - signing is all well and good, but no bugger looks at them.

 

[james60059]

I've noticed in the last year or so, the railway bridge over the A5 at Hinckley now has steel beams either side of the bridge to protect the structure, as well as large display boards to alert drivers if their vehicles are too high. And yes looking at the beams, they have been struck anyway :roll:

 

[najaB]

That one is only an inch or two too high.

That looks like more than two inches, it's well wedged in there.

 

[peterinsurrey]

knowing this location very very well, what they actually need to do is reduce the height of the bridge if it's not going to get any higher. 4.2m is just enough for the truckers to give it a go. I see a truck sneak slowly under it every time I walk under it.

A quote I found on a truckers forum: "That one at tulse hill though is at least 3" higher than stated, i dont know how much higher as i had my eyes shut at the time !".

Put a solid bar underneath & they'll stay away...

 

[hwl]

Repairs at tulse hill currently underway with some of the diagonal cross bracing between the pillars being replaced.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

knowing this location very very well, what they actually need to do is reduce the height of the bridge if it's not going to get any higher. 4.2m is just enough for the truckers to give it a go. I see a truck sneak slowly under it every time I walk under it.

A quote I found on a truckers forum: "That one at tulse hill though is at least 3" higher than stated, i dont know how much higher as i had my eyes shut at the time !".

Put a solid bar underneath & they'll stay away...

Here's an idea. How about a sign that says "20 HGVs HIT THIS BRIDGE LAST YEAR." They could try putting it on that dot matrix sign ahead of it.

Perhaps *then* the drivers would give it a second thought?

 

[Antman]

knowing this location very very well, what they actually need to do is reduce the height of the bridge if it's not going to get any higher. 4.2m is just enough for the truckers to give it a go. I see a truck sneak slowly under it every time I walk under it.

A quote I found on a truckers forum: "That one at tulse hill though is at least 3" higher than stated, i dont know how much higher as i had my eyes shut at the time !".

Put a solid bar underneath & they'll stay away...

I don't understand why anybody would want to "give it a go" when there is an easy route around the bridge.

If that container lorry had been a bit higher the impact could well have caused it to overturn.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

A quote I found on a truckers forum: "That one at tulse hill though is at least 3" higher than stated, i dont know how much higher as i had my eyes shut at the time !".

Is there a link available to that post / thread?

 

[M7R]

That one is only an inch or two too high. Measurement issue either truck or bridge? Road being resurfaced could make a few inches difference,

That's a high cube container, you can tell by the code on it and the chevrons in the corners to warn its higher than the normal (9ft 6 vs 8ft 6 for a standard container) so that could explain how it's hit, it's possible a normal container would go under - just... Still no real excuse but could explain why it happened.

 

[najaB]

If that container lorry had been a bit higher the impact could well have caused it to overturn.

It's not far from it, if you look at the front and rear, right-hand side of the trailer it appears the container has been wrenched loose. It wouldn't have taken that much for the sole remaining restraint to fail and it to fall off - woe betide a car behind or heading the opposite direction.

 

[richw]

That's a high cube container, you can tell by the code on it and the chevrons in the corners to warn its higher than the normal (9ft 6 vs 8ft 6 for a standard container) so that could explain how it's hit, it's possible a normal container would go under - just... Still no real excuse but could explain why it happened.

The bridge is 13'9, I'm trying to work out what the height would be of the low loader bed, I can't picture but imagine somewhere between 5' and 6'. An 8'6" container would go under with the low loaded bed up to 5'3 (prob 5'6 in reality knowing signs state lower than will actually fit under). A 9'6 has no chance as no way is the bed less than 4'6 from ground level.

 

[ComUtoR]

An 8'6" container would go under with the low loaded bed up to 5'3 (prob 5'6 in reality knowing signs state lower than will actually fit under).

Worth taking the chance then :roll:

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Removed on the grounds of taste.

 

[Jonny]

The bridge is 13'9, I'm trying to work out what the height would be of the low loader bed, I can't picture but imagine somewhere between 5' and 6'. An 8'6" container would go under with the low loaded bed up to 5'3 (prob 5'6 in reality knowing signs state lower than will actually fit under). A 9'6 has no chance as no way is the bed less than 4'6 from ground level.

More precisely, it is restricted to vehicles under the the specified height, so even if they make it, it's still illegal.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Worth taking the chance then :roll:

10 out of 10 for sarcasm, but seriously though, some people think that anything is OK as long as they are "doing their jobs". That is no excuse for putting others at risk. If anything, it's worse when ^bystanders^ (including train passengers) are put at risk.

In fact, charges of railway endangerment should be considered for any bridge bash.

 

[Chris M]

Surely with modern satnav technology, some kind of alert system could be fitted inside double decker buses that gives an audible warning if the driver is approaching a low bridge? Could be fitted to HGV's too, I'm sure the insurance companies would love it

Dragon's Den, here I come!

London's iBus system I believe does include this feature. It's not ideal though as it will sometimes generate alerts for bridges over side streets even if bus does not leave the main road. This is particularly the case when running off-route for any reason I suspect.
Crying wolf (or low bridge) too many times is not good psychology.

 

[ian959]

Out of interest, does Network Rail send an invoice to the lorry owner/driver for the cost of repairs to the bridge after a bridge strike? Or does it all get left to the general inadequate non-deterrent fines issued by the courts, if the matter gets that far?

All the Tulse Hill bridge tells us that no matter how much signage you put up, in both imperial and metric measurements, so-called professional drivers continue to just ignore the warnings and use the shorter route rather than the trouble free bypass route.

As for the double decker being off route in Rotherham, that is all well and good but it does not excuse the driver for not immediately recognising that his vehicle isn't going to fit. Good old Mark 1 human eyeballs tell you that... makes me wonder what the driver was thinking/doing.

 

[Haydn1971]

Out of interest, does Network Rail send an invoice to the lorry owner/driver for the cost of repairs to the bridge after a bridge strike? Or does it all get left to the general inadequate non-deterrent fines issued by the courts, if the matter gets that far?

If there's a known debtor a local authority would do this for damage to their equipment - such as sign/streetlight knockdowns, more often than not the debtor is not know. I'd be very annoyed if Network Rail aren't issuing bills for damage to hauliers and bus operators for damages. Although it does open the question, would their insurance cover this third party liability of what is in effect an unlawful act in the case of passing a circular height sign.

 

[pdq]

Surprised this rather serious bridge strike in Rochdale hasn't been mentioned on here yet: Rochdale bus crash: Seventeen hurt as roof shears off - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-34198572

 

[mac]

Address the cause,

Employ professional drivers with a professional attitude!

How where do you find these professional drivers?

 

[najaB]

Surprised this rather serious bridge strike in Rochdale hasn't been mentioned on here yet: Rochdale bus crash: Seventeen hurt as roof shears off - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-34198572

It was discussed around post #142 onwards.

 

[Ash Bridge]

How where do you find these professional drivers?

Perhaps the training process of LGV drivers needs to be looked at, e.g. potential train drivers (and probably airline pilots) undergo psychometric and other tests to determine suitability, there should be more emphasis on a candidates attitude and not just the ability to physically drive the vehicle.

 

[Antman]

Perhaps the training process of LGV drivers needs to be looked at, e.g. potential train drivers (and probably airline pilots) undergo psychometric and other tests to determine suitability, there should be more emphasis on a candidates attitude and not just the ability to physically drive the vehicle.

Hardly very practical, whilst there is no excuse for hitting a clearly signposted low bridge the bottom line is that we all make mistakes. Is there anybody on here who doesn't make mistakes? Only one so far it seems

 

[richw]

More precisely, it is restricted to vehicles under the the specified height, so even if they make it, it's still illegal.
.

Perhaps some enforcement is needed. Sit a police sting near a low bridge. Vehicles squeezing under but over height hit them with a fixed penalty.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Hardly very practical, whilst there is no excuse for hitting a clearly signposted low bridge the bottom line is that we all make mistakes. Is there anybody on here who doesn't make mistakes? Only one so far it seems

If it's practical for train drivers, why is it 'not very practical' for lorry drivers?

Just needs a change of attitude in the industry.

Sadly such changes only ever seem to be bought about in the wake of catastrophic accidents.

 

[Ash Bridge]

Hardly very practical, whilst there is no excuse for hitting a clearly signposted low bridge the bottom line is that we all make mistakes. Is there anybody on here who doesn't make mistakes? Only one so far it seems

Oh, I certainly have made mistakes and never said I didn't, but in 35years never managed anything near as serious as a bridge strike.

If it's practical for train drivers, why is it 'not very practical' for lorry drivers?

Just needs a change of attitude in the industry.

Sadly such changes only ever seem to be bought about in the wake of catastrophic accidents.

Agreed, spot on!

 

[Antman]

If it's practical for train drivers, why is it 'not very practical' for lorry drivers?

Just needs a change of attitude in the industry.

Sadly such changes only ever seem to be bought about in the wake of catastrophic accidents.

What change of attitude? How exactly is this going to work? The industry is more safety conscious than it's ever been. The question is, how do we stop human error?

 

[al78]

What change of attitude? How exactly is this going to work? The industry is more safety conscious than it's ever been. The question is, how do we stop human error?

If someone deliberately ignores warning signs can that really be classed as human error or are we now crossing the boundary into carelessness and recklessness?

The fact is, a motor vehicle is a potentially destructive machine when misused and the driver has to keep their concentration up at all times to avoid threat to life and property. I was almost killed earlier this year by a driver who had a momentary lapse of concentration and whilst I have sympathy for the driver I still think he needs to face the legal consequences of his actions.

 

[Antman]

If someone deliberately ignores warning signs can that really be classed as human error or are we now crossing the boundary into carelessness and recklessness?

The fact is, a motor vehicle is a potentially destructive machine when misused and the driver has to keep their concentration up at all times to avoid threat to life and property. I was almost killed earlier this year by a driver who had a momentary lapse of concentration and whilst I have sympathy for the driver I still think he needs to face the legal consequences of his actions.

Obviously if somebody deliberately ignores a warning sign it's different although I can't imagine many drivers doing that in the case of a low bridge.

Sadly people are killed and injured every day in road accidents most of which are caused by human error on somebody's part.

 

[richw]

If someone deliberately ignores warning signs can that really be classed as human error or are we now crossing the boundary into carelessness and recklessness?

.

Bridge strikes are:
Careless- Yes,
Deliberate - No way.

Although not the same thing, I have a roof box on my car at the moment. Last Friday I hit a height restriction barrier entering a car park at less than 5mph. I knew I was driving my car, but forgot I had the extra height on the roof.
With trucks the tractor unit will go under most bridges easily, its the height of the trailer and remembering if there is extra height on the trailer.

I'd say its easily done forgetting if something is higher than normal to forget the extra height.