Road closed in Market Harborough as lorry hits bridge minutes after it is repaired.

[DanDaDriver]

Network Rail and Leicestershire County Council have been forced to close Kettering Road after the bridge was struck by a lorry this morning, just minutes after it was repaired. A signed diversion is now in place.

Network Rail engineers carried out repair work to the brickwork on the arch of the bridge and put in place wooden slats to support the repair overnight. However, within minutes of finishing the repairs a lorry struck the bridge, fortunately on this occasion not causing any structural damage. A further two lorries were cautioned that they would be too tall to clear the bridge.

Simon Woodfield, Senior Asset Engineer for Network Rail said: ” We have had to take the decision to close the road under the bridge due to high risk of more vehicles hitting the bridge. The road is likely to stay closed until 19 January.

“We really do need drivers to pay attention to road signs and know the height of their vehicles. Bridge strikes are not only dangerous but they also cause disruption and cost a great deal of money.

“Last year the number of bridge strikes across the rail network went up, making it the worst year for bridge strikes for five years. Each year there are about 2000 railway bridge strikes, with each costing more than £10,000 for repairs and compensation to train operators for delays caused. Compensation costs Network Rail up to £13m a year, but the true annual cost is estimated to be up to £23m, once the value of undelivered goods, lost productivity from train delays and road congestion are taken into account.”

Research carried out by Network Rail, revealed 43% of lorry drivers admitted to not checking the height of their vehicle before heading out, with 52% admitting to not taking low bridges into account when planning their journeys.

Source: http://railtube.info/2019/01/road-c...ge-minutes-after-it-is-repaired-network-rail/


Good old lorry drivers...

 

[Tetchytyke]

Time to start suing HGV drivers and their employers when they do this. Should focus a few minds.

 

[alistairlees]

Time to start suing HGV drivers and their employers when they do this. Should focus a few minds.

Yep, shouldn't be difficult. Though I can't understand why the majority of bridges don't have metal barriers protecting them - surely it must be worth it to eliminate the disruption to rail services?

 

[theking]

What they should have is a concrete or steel bridge protector before the bridge a few inches lower than the actual bridge to destroy the lorry before it even comes into contact with the bridge structure itself obviously the hight signs will relate to the bridge protector.

Too many incompetent hgv/pcv drivers out there so prevention is the only way.

 

[big all]

the trouble you have is on an arched bridge where you could loose 1/3 the height available if you take it back to the lowest point over the road

 

[edwin_m]

the trouble you have is on an arched bridge where you could loose 1/3 the height available if you take it back to the lowest point over the road

And checking on Google this one is indeed arched. However there are bollards so vehicles can only pass under the centre part between the limits that are plated as 4.2m, so a metal frame slightly lower than the bridge would indeed work here.

 

[theking]

the trouble you have is on an arched bridge where you could loose 1/3 the height available if you take it back to the lowest point over the road

Ahh yes good point forgot about arched bridges.

 

[Antman]

Time to start suing HGV drivers and their employers when they do this. Should focus a few minds.

I doubt that will make any difference, surely nobody deliberately hits a low bridge? And how is the employer to blame? Reality is that such is the shortage of drivers they have to take whoever they can get.

 

[furnessvale]

I doubt that will make any difference, surely nobody deliberately hits a low bridge? And how is the employer to blame? Reality is that such is the shortage of drivers they have to take whoever they can get.

Absolutely no excuse. The whole road haulage industry is sitting back and blaming everyone else for the lack of drivers.

They will have to do what the railways does. Pay proper wages and pay to train drivers, don't expect the driver to pay for his own training.

 

[pdeaves]

And how is the employer to blame?

That depends on the planning systems they have in place and whether the driver was instructed to go that way or not.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I doubt that will make any difference, surely nobody deliberately hits a low bridge? And how is the employer to blame?

People make mistakes, and they make more mistakes when they're overworked, tired, or have impossible schedules to keep to.

Damn right it's the fault of the employers. And if they started getting hit for the cost, you can bet your house bridge strike rates would shoot down.

Why should Network Rail- and, by extension, rail fare passengers- have to foot the bill for someone else's stupidity? It costs the rail industry £15m a year- why shouldn't the idiot who causes it pay the bill?

 

[Antman]

Absolutely no excuse. The whole road haulage industry is sitting back and blaming everyone else for the lack of drivers.

They will have to do what the railways does. Pay proper wages and pay to train drivers, don't expect the driver to pay for his own training.

Wages have gone up, it's the cost of getting a licence in the first place and now the CPC on top means there are very few people qualified to do the job. There is no excuse for hitting a bridge but you can't blame the employer.

 

[Antman]

People make mistakes, and they make more mistakes when they're overworked, tired, or have impossible schedules to keep to.

Damn right it's the fault of the employers. And if they started getting hit for the cost, you can bet your house bridge strike rates would shoot down.

Why should Network Rail- and, by extension, rail fare passengers- have to foot the bill for someone else's stupidity?

Who said anything about being overworked or having impossible schedules to keep to? No it is not the employers fault.

 

[furnessvale]

Wages have gone up, it's the cost of getting a licence in the first place and now the CPC on top means there are very few people qualified to do the job. There is no excuse for hitting a bridge but you can't blame the employer.

This is a crisis that has been years in the making. How many years have companies known about CPC and just hoped it would go away.

The answer is simple. If the company can't put a fully qualified driver on the job, don't take on the work. Imagine the outcry if the railways were short of drivers but they managed to pull someone off the dole queue and hoped for the best.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Who said anything about being overworked or having impossible schedules to keep to?

Overworking and tight schedules are rife in the road haulage industry. You know that, I know that, we all know that.

No it is not the employers fault.

Fault is perhaps too strong a word, but there is a culture in the road haulage industry that exacerbates this problem.

But really vicarious liability kicks in here. If I cock up my employer ('s indemnity insurance) pays to put it right. It's only fair.

And if road hauliers get bigger bills, they'll have more robust procedures in place to stop HGV drivers hitting bridges. At the very least Sat Navs Gormlessness will be dealt wirh.

 

[Flying Snail]

Wages have gone up, it's the cost of getting a licence in the first place and now the CPC on top means there are very few people qualified to do the job. There is no excuse for hitting a bridge but you can't blame the employer.

Low height bridge warning systems have been available for about 15 years now so unless these were fitted and working then yes, the employers are at least partially to blame.

 

[Ianno87]

Yep, shouldn't be difficult. Though I can't understand why the majority of bridges don't have metal barriers protecting them - surely it must be worth it to eliminate the disruption to rail services?

I think there are rules about how far away they must be from the bridge, where they can be placed, how visible they must be, etc. which means that finding a suitablr location to place one is not always straightforward.

 

[DerekC]

Bridge height data could be on HGV satnavs - very possible to do, but who is going to pay?

 

[AndyW33]

Bridge height data could be on HGV satnavs - very possible to do, but who is going to pay?

But there have been special HGV satnavs with bridge height (and width, and weight limit) data available for some years now. Trouble is that some haulage companies choose to equip their vehicles with off the shelf satnavs intended for cars instead, or leave the driver to use mapping on a smartphone.

 

[whhistle]

Low height bridge warning systems have been available for about 15 years now so unless these were fitted and working then yes, the employers are at least partially to blame.

Because it's not my responsibility to see a large hole in the middle of the road.
If there were no warning signs, it's clearly not my fault if I fall in it, right?

 

[Robertj21a]

Bridge height data could be on HGV satnavs - very possible to do, but who is going to pay?

As far as I know this is available already.

 

[Antman]

Because it's not my responsibility to see a large hole in the middle of the road.
If there were no warning signs, it's clearly not my fault if I fall in it, right?

Exactly, the buck stops with the driver.

 

[a_c_skinner]

It is plainly negligent to drive a tall vehicle under a short bridge. You cannot argue otherwise. There are explanations but these are not excuses. The employer should be vicariously liable for the actions of its servants. I don't understand why we are just taking this on the chin. It isn't just railways, road users suffer too from the delays. Airliners have benefited from technology like collision avoidance, ground proximity, so called blind landing systems. We now have the technology to help large vehicles similarly (well, not to stop them flying into the ground). Airlines had no choice about fitting their aids. There is no reason why any PCV or L/HGV cannot have an alarm that shouts "STOP! STOP! STOP!" when heading to a low bridge. The data is available and the technology there.

 

[edwin_m]

But there have been special HGV satnavs with bridge height (and width, and weight limit) data available for some years now. Trouble is that some haulage companies choose to equip their vehicles with off the shelf satnavs intended for cars instead, or leave the driver to use mapping on a smartphone.

So the employer could spend a bit more to get a proper satnav, and significantly reduce the risk of bridge strikes. Network Rail recovering the costs from them would give them a good incentive to do this. They will claim on insurance, but no doubt the premiums will go up after a claim or two...

 

[al78]

I vaguely memember, possibly on here, someone trying to justify ignoring the height warning signs on the basis that they were generally too conservative and his own judgement was superior.

I notice the comparison between the haulage industry and the railway/airlines. The attitude toward accidents on the road seems to be far more lax than other transport modes, a road accident has a tendency to be played off as an accident (i.e. one of those things) rather than carelessness, and the 'but for the grace of God go I' mantra gets trotted out. That is one reason why drivers kill over a thousand people every year, with little to no media reporting on this, yet a rail or air crash and the following investigation will be all over the news, despite rail and air having much lower annual death tolls.

 

[philthetube]

Surely the operator will be responsible for repair costs, assuming correct signing is in place, but this will be down to their insurance to sort,

If they are not payinhg then nr need to get their fingers out.

 

[furnessvale]

Surely the operator will be responsible for repair costs, assuming correct signing is in place, but this will be down to their insurance to sort,

If they are not payinhg then nr need to get their fingers out.

That presupposes that the vehicle stops at the scene.

In my experience, if the vehicle is able to leave the scene the driver will do so, leaving NR to clear up any damage.

 

[jfowkes]

I vaguely memember, possibly on here, someone trying to justify ignoring the height warning signs on the basis that they were generally too conservative and his own judgement was superior.

I notice the comparison between the haulage industry and the railway/airlines. The attitude toward accidents on the road seems to be far more lax than other transport modes, a road accident has a tendency to be played off as an accident (i.e. one of those things) rather than carelessness, and the 'but for the grace of God go I' mantra gets trotted out. That is one reason why drivers kill over a thousand people every year, with little to no media reporting on this, yet a rail or air crash and the following investigation will be all over the news, despite rail and air having much lower annual death tolls.

Absolutely. The quicker that safety standards in aviation/rail are applied to road, the better.

And just like aviation/rail, we should realise that professional drivers are limited, fallible and human and that they are one part of a much larger system. An individual accident investigation may conclude that a driver was largely at fault, but it will still have lessons for the system as a whole, because the system should be designed to take driver faults into account.

 

[DanDaDriver]

At work we have a number of ex HGV drivers who talk about the ways they got round their tacho hours for example. Their employers attitude was that as long as the job got done, they didn’t care.

 

[Antman]

At work we have a number of ex HGV drivers who talk about the ways they got round their tacho hours for example. Their employers attitude was that as long as the job got done, they didn’t care.

No system is ever going to be foolproof, putting tacho on rest whilst unloading is a common trick.

Another one in Strood today.