Lorry strikes bridge - What more could be done to prevent it?

[Bromley boy]

How about some kind of engine cut off / emergency brake system that would legally have to be fitted to every tall vehicle, and then a system (either gps or using some kind of system mounted on the roadside) that would trigger the engine cut off / emergency brake when the vehicle gets to a low bridge? Sure it may be a hammer to crack a nut (as it would be expensive and wouldn't allow for differences in height) but if drivers continue to be stupid and reckless then what else can we do? Maybe a ban for such drivers under dangerous driving laws?

Might be difficult when you have tractor units which pull a range of different sized trailers...

 

[matacaster]

Transmitters on low bridges sending out continuous warnings to be picked up by satnavs?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I like the water curtain solution at the Sydney Harbour Tunnel:

And that video, at the end, shows the danger with beams: they crash down, but on the poor sod minding his own business behind.

Regardless of intent (and I doubt it's intentional, it's gormless) prosecutions for dangerous driving might help.

 

[Tetchytyke]

There probably needs to be a law so that vehicles over a certain height have their height displayed clearly in the cab.

We have them in buses, doesn't stop double deckers regularly getting turned into open-top tour buses.

 

[najaB]

The main problem was illustrated on this forum a few months back. To summarise, we had a professional driver who said that he ignores height prohibitions when he 'knows' that his truck will fit.

 

[Llanigraham]

Transmitters on low bridges sending out continuous warnings to be picked up by satnavs?

And what happens when people don't have these sat navs?

 

[BestWestern]

Charge the vehicle the full cost of repairs and delay minutes. Getting hit with a bill like that will soon focus the mind. I bet if hauliers were getting hit with the true costs, the fear of it happening to them would drive a better culture.

Sadly not. Buses continue to wallop low bridges on a regular basis, particularly in London where the TfL set-up is far more thorough than most other places. As well as the cost to the bus operator, the guilty drivers are risking the loss of their PCV licence and their income, a disqualification for dangerous driving, and potentially being locked up for killing people. That doesn't work either!

 

[snowball]

A more practicable method would be a higher bar with bells dangling from it, or no bar at all but light beam height detectors linked to flashing signs or klaxons.

Been tried, and they still get ignored.

Might be worth doing nevertheless as it provides more evidence for prosecuting the driver.

 

[BestWestern]

Might be worth doing nevertheless as it provides more evidence for prosecuting the driver.

It's pretty easy to prosecute them on the evidence that their vehicle is wedged under the bridge! That's plenty.

 

[johnkingeu]

I like the water curtain solution at the Sydney Harbour Tunnel

Genius solution. And the only one that actually works. Note how the driver goes past 3 progressively bigger flashing signs and that is the only thing that stops him.

 

[snowball]

It's pretty easy to prosecute them on the evidence that their vehicle is wedged under the bridge! That's plenty.

But it might get a bigger fine out of them if they'd ignored vehicle-triggered flashing signs. It would be greater proof that they were irresponsible drivers and not merely careless.

 

[theageofthetra]

Not really that good a system as the tractor unit could switch trailers, or carry additional loads behind it such as containers which might be above the height of the cab. I remember one case where a lorry driver stokk a bridge and was going crazy at the staff who attended as his in cab height was lower than the bridge height, he couldn't quite grasp that his trailer was a good 18 inches or more above his cab, and it was THAT which had collided with the bridge!

Frightening that someone of such a low IQ is driving any sort of machinery.

 

[CeeJ]

The answer is obvious no? Ban lorries and carry everything by rail freight

 

[rich r]

Beams and traffic lights are used in some places - but as mentioned above, no use in places like this one where there's a junction right before the bridge. So a truck can legitimately drive right up to the bridge as long as it's turning into the junction rather than going under it.

 

[rebmcr]

I like the water curtain solution at the Sydney Harbour Tunnel

Genius solution. And the only one that actually works. Note how the driver goes past 3 progressively bigger flashing signs and that is the only thing that stops him.

Unfortunately, that tunnel has experienced drivers of tall vehicles also ignoring the water curtain.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

A more practicable method would be a higher bar with bells dangling from it, or no bar at all but light beam height detectors linked to flashing signs or klaxons.

As a deterrent rather than a preventative measure - what if the light beam also triggered a camera, with ANPR, that took an image of the vehicle and immediately sent out a fine. Like the London Congestion Charge cameras? I guess you'd have to do the height restriction *prior* to the bridge, but still. You'd like to think the haulage companies Managers would be calling their drivers in for a chat if they had a pile of fines land on their desk with CCTV pictures of their drivers being dunces.

 

[EM2]

Unfortunately, that tunnel has experienced drivers of tall vehicles also ignoring the water curtain.

You can't legislate against idiots completely, but an estimated 30 incidents a year is a massive reduction.

 

[xotGD]

If a train were to hit a lineside structure, the whole service would be suspended, there would be a year-long inquiry and £xxx million would have to be spent to ensure it never happens again. If it is a lorry or a bus hitting a bridge, everyone just shrugs it off and waits for it to happen again.

 

[Spartacus]

If a train were to hit a lineside structure, the whole service would be suspended, there would be a year-long inquiry and £xxx million would have to be spent to ensure it never happens again. If it is a lorry or a bus hitting a bridge, everyone just shrugs it off and waits for it to happen again.

Well no, depending on how the bridge is graded services could be cautioned or stopped completely until the bridge is examined either from the line or the road, and if possible the same is done to the vehicle that hit it.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Idiots do not just reside in the UK

 

[alxndr]

Well no, depending on how the bridge is graded services could be cautioned or stopped completely until the bridge is examined either from the line or the road, and if possible the same is done to the vehicle that hit it.

I think the point being made was not about the checks immediately after but the investigations to find the root cause and look at how to prevent a recurrence when a train is involved in an incident (i.e. RAIB investigations).

 

[furnessvale]

Beams and traffic lights are used in some places - but as mentioned above, no use in places like this one where there's a junction right before the bridge. So a truck can legitimately drive right up to the bridge as long as it's turning into the junction rather than going under it.

It is possible to place the beams extremely close to the bridge. For example, when Redhouse lane bridge, Disley was rebuilt, substantial safety beams were bolted to the abutments, transferring impact loads to the ground and protecting the deck from strikes.

This was one of the most struck bridges in the country, but shortly after the bridge was rebuilt, the factory generating the HGVs closed and now virtually no HGVs use that road!

 

[Elecman]

It is possible to place the beams extremely close to the bridge. For example, when Redhouse lane bridge, Disley was rebuilt, substantial safety beams were bolted to the abutments, transferring impact loads to the ground and protecting the deck from strikes.

This was one of the most struck bridges in the country, but shortly after the bridge was rebuilt, the factory generating the HGVs closed and now virtually no HGVs use that road!

That bridge also had a very expensive bridge bash alarm system fitted to alarm in the controlling Signalbox, also now redundant

 

[lewisf]

I wonder what percentage of bridge strikes are caused by our insistence on using imperial measurements on our road signs. I know new signs have to show the metric height too but there’s loads of old signs out there.

I ask this as I noticed that on some London buses the max height is only shown to the driver in metric, and I’m sure this is the case in the cabs of a lot of European lorries.

Of course, some people just aren’t paying attention

 

[Leo1961]

Metric idiots are just as dumb as imperial idiots in my experience

 

[B&I]

Auto turrets? Missile carrying drones? Land mines? Snipers?

Look that that picture - you can not educate mince.

Attach the warning gantries to high tension electric lines, or very sharp portcullises (portcullisi ?)

 

[sw1ller]

Genius solution. And the only one that actually works. Note how the driver goes past 3 progressively bigger flashing signs and that is the only thing that stops him.

It’s not the only one that works at all..... I was a HGV driver for 15 years and never got myself into such a situation. Never had a water curtain to tell me to stop either. Education is the way forward. That and fines for the employer. If they think they’ll get fined they’ll stop the driver from going that route. Simple. I honestly don’t understand drivers getting wedged under bridges, you’ve gotta be a special kind of simple to do that in my opinion.

 

[furnessvale]

It’s not the only one that works at all..... I was a HGV driver for 15 years and never got myself into such a situation. Never had a water curtain to tell me to stop either. Education is the way forward. That and fines for the employer. If they think they’ll get fined they’ll stop the driver from going that route. Simple. I honestly don’t understand drivers getting wedged under bridges, you’ve gotta be a special kind of simple to do that in my opinion.

One of the most struck bridges in the country was Redhouse Lane, Disley. ALL the HGVs using that bridge went to one factory (now closed).

I would recommend that liability for strikes in such circumstances should extend to the end user as well as the haulier and driver.

 

[Domh245]

One of the most struck bridges in the country was Redhouse Lane, Disley. ALL the HGVs using that bridge went to one factory (now closed).

Which bridge were they hitting? The Buxton line one, or the one towards New Mills South? On Streetview, the Buxton line bridge is 12ft, and the New Mills South one is 14ft 6" - but is a more modern construction complete with protective beams? Presumably it was the latter.

 

[furnessvale]

Which bridge were they hitting? The Buxton line one, or the one towards New Mills South? On Streetview, the Buxton line bridge is 12ft, and the New Mills South one is 14ft 6" - but is a more modern construction complete with protective beams? Presumably it was the latter.

Yes it was the latter which now shows the rebuilt version.

I am not sure if the rebuild gained any height but even so, the factory in question made new plastic barrels so hauliers were used to consigning 15' 6" high HGVs to collect such loads! If the factory had a personal liability for the damage I am sure they would have been more proactive in instructing the hauliers.