Latest bridge strike - Dover

[shredder1]

Typo? or some sort of comment on my point?

No, it means I agree with you, "you are correct".

 

[shredder1]

If it is a dangerous mistake which really is avoidable, or rather carelessness sugar coated as a mistake, they yes, a professional driver should be fired.

It is bizarre the attempts to trivialise/downpla/excuse motoring road incidents in a way that would never be acceptable in other occupations. Oh sorry love, your mother has just died because the surgeon made a mistake, but it happens you know when they are tired. It doesn't happen.

It is also ridiculous when those who try to excuse driving errors will automatically leap on a cyclist who does something wrong which has far less destruction potential. I conclude that it is more about emotion and personal identity than logic and rational objective thought.

A driver is responsible for his vehicle and load, even if an illegal immigrant jumps in the back of his trailer he is still responsible. I think what we are discussing here though is that there is an issue with drivers hitting low bridges and regardless of how many you sack, I don`t think this issue will go away until its looked at in more depth and consider the outlined contributing factors. Motorway lights are switched off in certain areas at night to save electricity, and the accident rate increases, cars don`t have accidents in car show rooms, they need a driver behind the wheel, but some variables contribute, no sugar coasting, just basic fact. The tachographs legislation used to allow drivers to drive for 2 x15 hour days over a two week period, and companies monitored drivers and expected them to do this, do you really think that was safe?Has this now changed?

 

[furnessvale]

No, it means I agree with you, "you are correct".

Thanks

 

[shredder1]

Thanks

Ah apologies I`ve just noticed what I`d typed, yes typo, sorry, old age and single malt, not a great combination mate

 

[axlecounter]

If it is a dangerous mistake which really is avoidable, or rather carelessness sugar coated as a mistake, they yes, a professional driver should be fired.

It is bizarre the attempts to trivialise/downpla/excuse motoring road incidents in a way that would never be acceptable in other occupations. Oh sorry love, your mother has just died because the surgeon made a mistake, but it happens you know when they are tired. It doesn't happen.

It is also ridiculous when those who try to excuse driving errors will automatically leap on a cyclist who does something wrong which has far less destruction potential. I conclude that it is more about emotion and personal identity than logic and rational objective thought.

It doesn't happen, but in the end enough people still die under the hand of (extremely professional and serious) surgeons. People may make mistakes while working.

I wasn't trying to excuse any road incident. Actually, I'm all for severe punishement of any serious infringement of the rules of the road, especially those about stupid modern-day distractions or nonsense speeding that can cause major damages.

But just like, as we all know, humans are fallible, humans at work are fallible too. Any mistake is avoidable just as much as mistakes keep happening.
If it was out of carelessness some kind of punishment could be an answer, but firing should be a solution only after repeated and/or bad mistakes. But talking about firing someone is always easier when it's not your job...

 

[LWB]

It's "metres". Speaking in my mid 60s, I find it rather amusing to think 'many older drivers' might not know about metric measurements. Even my late mother, born 1929, was taught metric measurements at school. She used to get really wound up about this myth of 'older people' not understanding the metric system.

As I understood it, dual imperial/metric measurements were only included in the traffic sign regulations a few years ago, for use at low bridges specifically, for the benefit of foreign drivers who might not understand feet and inches...

Pedant mode on... Strictly speaking it is metre not metres. The plural s is not used in the SI system as it is too easily confused with s for second.

 

[jopsuk]

There's more than four bridge strikes of railway bridges EVERY DAY. There's no real trend to the frequency- numbers are here for every reporting year since 2000

 

[shredder1]

There's more than four bridge strikes of railway bridges EVERY DAY. There's no real trend to the frequency- numbers are here for every reporting year since 2000

I had no idea it was that many, thanks for sharing.

 

[hwl]

I had no idea it was that many, thanks for sharing.

#2 on that list (South Circular at Tulse Hill was #1 for years) is favorite for over height chancers especially with 9'6" containers* which shouldn't go on the route as they are over the height number on the bridge sign but they can get under if heavily laden and driven slowly then on the return trip empty or with different trailer they hit. One of the largest to/from port container haulers has had multiple strikes per year there. The other favorite at Tulse Hill was when the 2 largest supermarket groups (t+s) introduced an new higher model of rigid refrigerated lorry for deliveries to metro stores which had numerous strikes from 2015 onwards, they have now been replace with lower ones! A third supermarket (m) groups refrigerated artics from their Kent depot have had hits and plenty of near misses (reversing an artic up the Souther Circ is entertaining to watch). It also has over 10 height triggered electronic warning signs and other fixed signage for miles on the approaches.

* for example https://www.networkrailmediacentre....s-after-lorries-hit-three-bridges-in-12-hours
An one of the numerous evening standard articles about Tulse Hill:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...-17th-strike-in-just-six-months-a3239591.html
(also see twitter)

It has since been repainted in even more high contrast with reflective yellow paint and an even bigger "low bridge" sign since those pictures. Thankfully the local NR depot is 100m away adn there is usually an MoM in an NR van watching the bridge from round the corner for most of the day, it also now has CCTV coverage from every angle in and around the bridge (and on some approach signs) including at Lorry drivers eye height to see if they have looked at signs and then ignored them.


#1 is also on the South Circular, may be TfL Streets might like to contribute to the replacement of both - they did contribute to some of the Tulse Hill CCTV and improved signage

 

[Antman]

#2 on that list (South Circular at Tulse Hill was #1 for years) is favorite for over height chancers especially with 9'6" containers* which shouldn't go on the route as they are over the height number on the bridge sign but they can get under if heavily laden and driven slowly then on the return trip empty or with different trailer they hit. One of the largest to/from port container haulers has had multiple strikes per year there. The other favorite at Tulse Hill was when the 2 largest supermarket groups (t+s) introduced an new higher model of rigid refrigerated lorry for deliveries to metro stores which had numerous strikes from 2015 onwards, they have now been replace with lower ones! A third supermarket (m) groups refrigerated artics from their Kent depot have had hits and plenty of near misses (reversing an artic up the Souther Circ is entertaining to watch). It also has over 10 height triggered electronic warning signs and other fixed signage for miles on the approaches.

* for example https://www.networkrailmediacentre....s-after-lorries-hit-three-bridges-in-12-hours
An one of the numerous evening standard articles about Tulse Hill:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...-17th-strike-in-just-six-months-a3239591.html
(also see twitter)

It has since been repainted in even more high contrast with reflective yellow paint and an even bigger "low bridge" sign since those pictures. Thankfully the local NR depot is 100m away adn there is usually an MoM in an NR van watching the bridge from round the corner for most of the day, it also now has CCTV coverage from every angle in and around the bridge (and on some approach signs) including at Lorry drivers eye height to see if they have looked at signs and then ignored them.


#1 is also on the South Circular, may be TfL Streets might like to contribute to the replacement of both - they did contribute to some of the Tulse Hill CCTV and improved signage

Ironically there's a very easy diversion route via Lancaster Avenue to avoid the bridge at Tulse Hill. The CPC course for drivers clearly isn't having the desired effect, the only challenging thing about it is staying awake!

 

[daikilo]

There's more than four bridge strikes of railway bridges EVERY DAY. There's no real trend to the frequency- numbers are here for every reporting year since 2000

There is certainly no excuse for there being that many. Clearance under bridges rarely changes nor do their locations so a satnav directory must be possible. As to actual height of loads, it only requires the addition of the height of the fifth wheel, the "thickness" of the trailer bed and the load (or the height of the trailer). These two are so simple I would increase fines dramatically and even confiscate vehicles. I would also contemplate a sign "stop and check your load" before the bridge and simply ban "high" loads from the most frequently hit bridges with a barrier at say 3m. The technology is there to stop them happening if procedures are followed.

 

[hwl]

Ironically there's a very easy diversion route via Lancaster Avenue to avoid the bridge at Tulse Hill. The CPC course for drivers clearly isn't having the desired effect, the only challenging thing about it is staying awake!

Agreed there is even the later (last seconds in the later case!) Elmcourt and Ave Park routes.

 

[zaax]

If all All lorries had a built in working Truck (not car) satnav, (which should be part of the MOT) which could then could route driver around low bridges etc.

 

[shredder1]

If all All lorries had a built in working Truck (not car) satnav, (which should be part of the MOT) which could then could route driver around low bridges etc.

Would it automatically adjust itself when you pick a different sized trailer up?

 

[daikilo]

If all All lorries had a built in working Truck (not car) satnav, (which should be part of the MOT) which could then could route driver around low bridges etc.

A satnav shows passive items like round-abouts and petrol stations so why not "below standard height" bridges, doesn't even need ro be dynamic like congestion.

If ever a strike causes a bridge to partially collapse as a train goes over causing say a deraiment, some very challenging questions will be asked, and probably heads will roll. The key question will probably start with "As bridge strikes have happened before, did you not consider that ...?" Followed by "And what did you do about it?"

I would like to think that the outcome would vindicate the bridge owners, but I am far from sure.

 

[shredder1]

A satnav shows passive items like round-abouts and petrol stations so why not "below standard height" bridges, doesn't even need ro be dynamic like congestion. If ever a strike causes a bridge to partially collapse as a train goes, over some very challenging questions will be asked, and probably heads will roll.

SAtnavs bleep on speed cameras, could this not be developed for low bridges I wonder??

 

[Antman]

If all All lorries had a built in working Truck (not car) satnav, (which should be part of the MOT) which could then could route driver around low bridges etc.

Not everybody uses satnavs and there is a device that sounds when approaching a low bridge although it can't be relied upon and if it failed to go off when it should it would not exonerate the driver.

 

[shredder1]

Not everybody uses satnavs and there is a device that sounds when approaching a low bridge although it can't be relied upon and if it failed to go off when it should it would not exonerate the driver.

I expect once driverless vehicles are released issues of this nature should be resolved. Isnt technology marvelous, I`m looking forward to the day when I can get absolutely legless and the car will take me safely home, hick

 

[jopsuk]

I had no idea it was that many, thanks for sharing.

That's just the Network Rail owned railway bridges, of course. It doesn't include strikes to bridges carrying other railway networks, roads, paths, canals, tracks, utilities etc. Could easily be double.

 

[shredder1]

That's just the Network Rail owned railway bridges, of course. It doesn't include strikes to bridges carrying other railway networks, roads, paths, canals, tracks, utilities etc. Could easily be double.

Yes of course, we forget about the others.

 

[Chrisgr31]

There's more than four bridge strikes of railway bridges EVERY DAY. There's no real trend to the frequency- numbers are here for every reporting year since 2000

It does rather raise the question as to how often the track is damaged after a hit or whether the instant stopping of trains until an inspection has taken place is overkill

 

[daikilo]

It does rather raise the question as to how often the track is damaged after a hit or whether the instant stopping of trains until an inspection has taken place is overkill

Very rarely, but just one is one too many. If I was in the role of validating operations after a bridge strike I would at least want to see/hear the inspection report. It will take time and cost money and I would stay awake at night waiting for it.

 

[TwistedMentat]

Yeah. It's kinda like having a problem with an aircraft. The problem might not result in a failure very often, but when it does? Huge consequences, for both money and life.

 

[daikilo]

I would not use that similitude as there will be no issue with the train until and even after such a derailment. The issue is that we know bridge strikes happen and sadly will continue to do so until we do something drastic.

 

[Antman]

It does rather raise the question as to how often the track is damaged after a hit or whether the instant stopping of trains until an inspection has taken place is overkill

Very rarely I would imagine, a container lorry like the Dover incident might do some damage if it wasn't for the protective beam but most lorries or buses would just fold on impact.

 

[daikilo]

Very rarely I would imagine, a container lorry like the Dover incident might do some damage if it wasn't for the protective beam but most lorries or buses would just fold on impact.

Whilst I agree about the benefit of the protection beam, any contact with the bridge itself could cause damage as the initial energy is dissipated. This is particularly the case with the lift beam of skip lorries and heavy machinery on low loaders. Even in the Dover case, it is quite possible that the tractor unit swung upwards and hit the lower side of the bridge which appears to be brick. IIRC, there was a case recently where a complete steel bridge deck was pushed slightly along its supports.

 

[Cletus]

Just for a change, this bridge in Dover has been walloped again.
https://www.kentlive.news/news/kent-news/live-coombe-valley-road-traffic-1933567

Onlookers in Dover are unimpressed after yet another lorry hit and then become stuck under the Coombe Valley Bridge

The collision occurred at about 9.30am today (August 24).

It seems like the lorry's cab was able to fit underneath the bridge, but its load did not clear its height restriction.

The lorry's load is now at an angle, with the load warped and wedged under the railway bridge.

Police are thought to be at the scene at the road is blocked while the incident is being dealt with.

#LorriesCantLimbo

 

[Spartacus]

About right. I've actually seen a lorry driver going mad because he hit a bridge, as the bridge height plate was clearly higher than his plated cab height. He didn't seem capable of appreciating that his trailer was a good two foot or more higher than his cab! Frankly, if he was that dumb he shouldn't have been allowed on anything bigger than a bicycle!