Bridge Strikes

[HowardGWR]

This seems to sum it up adequately. Note that he is still driving -got another job.

http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/...e-Inverness-Sheriff-Court-hears-10112015.htm?

Mr McColl said the accident was the result of him not paying attention and his lack of understanding that the bus would not clear the bridge.

He said Ralph normally drove single decker buses and to his mind he was driving a single decker.

Sheriff Neilson endorsed Ralph’s licence with eight penalty points and fined him £500.

John McColl, solicitor, said that following the incident Ralph was dismissed by Stagecoach but he had secured employment on a lower class of vehicle.

Can you imagine a train driver getting another driving job after something similar?

 

[AndrewE]

2 totally different industries. Rail (generally) has a compliance culture because there is lots of oversight, including computers timing trains nowadays, whereas road has almost no oversight or law enforcement (let alone making individuals carry the cost of their short-cuts because the rest of us pay through our insurance premiums to bail out the selfish cretins.)

 

[jopsuk]

I guess GearJammer might be an independent haulier- very common. Don't get those on the railway in the same way.

Some areas of trucking are getting more regulated- schemes such as CLOCS help though they hugely favour companies with their own fleets.

 

[Chris M]

So going back to the poster above, why is that road marked up as 14ft, when the bridge is at the very least 15ft? After all, trucks don't jump, and they don't bounce that much.

The safe height of a bridge is calculated by taking the lowest clearance point (which might be over a pavement that a road vehicle could mount), subtracting 3 inches and then rounding down to the nearest multiple of three inches (if required). This means there should always be a margin for error of at least 3 inches between the top of a road vehicle and the lowest point on the bridge.

I'm not familiar with the A36, but if there is a pavement that is not physically separated from the carriageway by more than a kerb the height above that will be used for the calculation. The difference between directions may be due to different gradients/curvatures on the different sides of the road/approaches that have been taken into consideration. The rigid length of vehicles will also make a difference (articulated lorries bend vertically as well as horizontally)

As for bouncing, I expect that a solid steel box firmly locked to the frame of the lorry will bounce very little. However, the same is probably not true for all loads - an excavator with large pneumatic tires will have some play in the chains securing it to the lorry, in the tires, in the suspension and possibly in the hydraulics of the boom arm that together could cause a bounce of 2-3 inches.

Finally, regarding comparisons between rail and road, the exact path and dynamic gauge of a rail vehicle is calculable and reliable. In contrast these factors on a road vehicle are not reliable and much harder to calculate (given the much greater variation in designs and greater number of variable factors). This means that there is a much greater tolerance required for road vehicles than there is for rail vehicles, and as a result the consequences of being slightly wrong on a railway are much more significant.

This is well illustrated by the following photograph of a London Underground Northern Line train near Hendon Central:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Why_London_Underground_is_nicknamed_The_Tube.jpg
No road vehicle could operate at any useful speed with clearances that tight.

 

[Radedamer]

<Not directly connected with bridge strikes>
The various people who doubt they will see self-driving vehicles as everyday sight should watch this:
https://youtu.be/b_m8DqTlOLE

The steering is still a little crude compared to (most!) humans but bear in mind this is what can be done now. Give it another ten years of development and it will be far further on than just parking and stop-start driving.

 

[12CSVT]

<Not directly connected with bridge strikes>
The various people who doubt they will see self-driving vehicles as everyday sight should watch this:
https://youtu.be/b_m8DqTlOLE

The steering is still a little crude compared to (most!) humans but bear in mind this is what can be done now. Give it another ten years of development and it will be far further on than just parking and stop-start driving.

I guess Mr Bean wished he had a self-driving car when he was late for the dentist appointment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNV0mc_cpQ0

 

[EbbwJunction1]

This one is a bit embarrassing .....

http://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co....ice_gets_stuck_under_bridge_in_acle_1_4325050

See what the bus was being used for?

 

[ComUtoR]

There was another one today on our patch :/

 

[Minilad]

<Not directly connected with bridge strikes>
The various people who doubt they will see self-driving vehicles as everyday sight should watch this:
https://youtu.be/b_m8DqTlOLE

The steering is still a little crude compared to (most!) humans but bear in mind this is what can be done now. Give it another ten years of development and it will be far further on than just parking and stop-start driving.

Thats all well and good but what happens if the car park is full. Where does it park. And how do you know where it has parked.
I will continue to park my car myself in less time than that took!

 

[jopsuk]

This one is a bit embarrassing .....

http://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co....ice_gets_stuck_under_bridge_in_acle_1_4325050

See what the bus was being used for?

Unusual for a single decker to strike! But that's a very low bridge, looking at the signs.

 

[richw]

It looks to be only the raised emergency exit that has hit, or it may have lost its entire top deck

 

[Antman]

London Overground suspended between Hackney Downs and Chingford due to a lorry hitting a bridge

 

[LeylandLen]

Another one today in Preston ,Lancs http://www.lep.co.uk/news/local/road-closed-after-lorry-stuck-under-bridge-1-7614590 I believe it was a bridge carrying the WCML but cant have caused much damage. Ironically it looks like the vehicle is owned by a demolition contractor !

A lorry stuck under a bridge means the A583 Fylde Road in Preston was closed both ways.

The lorry stuck was under the railway bridge between Maudland Bank and Ashton Street.
It has since been moved and traffic is flowing smoothly.

 

[richw]

Another one today in Preston ,Lancs http://www.lep.co.uk/news/local/road-closed-after-lorry-stuck-under-bridge-1-7614590 I believe it was a bridge carrying the WCML but cant have caused much damage. Ironically it looks like the vehicle is owned by a demolition contractor !

Excellent how they got their service van with full details in the shot as well!

 

[LeylandLen]

Seems to be a bridge on SW main line between Wimbledon and Raynes Park.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...stuck-under-bridge-in-wimbledon-a3138696.html

This van became the latest vehicle to get stuck underneath a notorious railway bridge that has seen at least nine accidents in 18 months.

A series of lorries, vans and trailers have got trapped under the bridge in Lower Downs Road, Wimbledon, after apparently relying on their satnavs.
Matthew Appleby, who lives nearby, said that he had witnessed accidents at the rate of “almost one a month”.

Merton council said: “There are a number of warning signs on both approaches to the bridge...

 

[Oswyntail]

Seems to be a bridge on SW main line between Wimbledon and Raynes Park .

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...stuck-under-bridge-in-wimbledon-a3138696.html

That's lovely. Signs in metric and imperial; black and yellow stripes; a clear white "width bar"; flashing height warnings on the approach. And still the local council asks NR if there is anything else it can do.:roll:

 

[Llanigraham]

I'm sure that NR can think of a nice simple cure for it, but I'm not sure that the LA would be happy with it closed permanently.

 

[swt_passenger]

I see someone in the comments suggests it might be better when the bridge has to be rebuilt for Crossrail 2. It might lose the arch shape but it isn't likely to get any higher is it...

 

[Bald Rick]

I see someone in the comments suggests it might be better when the bridge has to be rebuilt for Crossrail 2. It might lose the arch shape but it isn't likely to get any higher is it...

And might not need rebuilding anyway.

 

[Antman]

Seems to be a bridge on SW main line between Wimbledon and Raynes Park .

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...stuck-under-bridge-in-wimbledon-a3138696.html

It was all the sat navs fault then?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

That bridge has been hit several times in recent weeks. The lorry involved this week, believe it or not, is actually one of the smaller ones to have hit it...

 

[richw]

Seems to be a bridge on SW main line between Wimbledon and Raynes Park .

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...stuck-under-bridge-in-wimbledon-a3138696.html

That's only a 3.5 ton van. Anyone can drive with a car licence so we can't blame (un)professional drivers this time. I have hired several of these over the course of 2015... None of them have had the height visibly available... However a low top transit from the same company had a height sticker even though much lower than one of these vans.

I notice the one in the photo is a self drive rental. He can kiss good bye to his deposit.

Looking at the height there, my old people carrier wouldn't have gone under there when it had the roof box attached!

 

[Antman]

That bridge has been hit several times in recent weeks. The lorry involved this week, believe it or not, is actually one of the smaller ones to have hit it...

I saw a similar transit type van approach that bridge a while back although on that occasion the driver stopped and turned around before hitting it
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's only a 3.5 ton van. Anyone can drive with a car licence so we can't blame (un)professional drivers this time. I have hired several of these over the course of 2015... None of them have had the height visibly available... However a low top transit from the same company had a height sticker even though much lower than one of these vans.

I notice the one in the photo is a self drive rental. He can kiss good bye to his deposit.

Looking at the height there, my old people carrier wouldn't have gone under there when it had the roof box attached!

Hire companies do usually emphasis the height and it certainly should be clearly displayed in the cab

 

[Radedamer]

I think having the height displayed in the cab is only legally required if it's over 3m, which that van doesn't look to be.

 

[Murph]

That's only a 3.5 ton van. Anyone can drive with a car licence so we can't blame (un)professional drivers this time. …

Are you sure about that? It might be a 7.5t, or class C1. Of course, those of us from the 1970s and earlier have a standard C1+E entitlement (can't remember offhand, but something like 10–12t total including the trailer), if we have not done something silly to lose it.

I'm not sure of the regs, but I'd be rather surprised if a company was hiring out large box vans (whether they are 3.5t or 7.5t) without a prominent height notice in the cab. It might even be compulsory these days for a 7.5t (and if not, it really should be).

 

[90019]

Are you sure about that? It might be a 7.5t, or class C1.

Yes, that'll be a 3.5t van.
C1 and 7.5 tonners are one and the same, and are usually small lorries.

Of course, those of us from the 1970s and earlier have a standard C1+E entitlement (can't remember offhand, but something like 10–12t total including the trailer), if we have not done something silly to lose it.

Maximum allowed with a C1+E is a combined weight of 12t, so 7.5t hgv with 4.5t trailer.

I'm not sure of the regs, but I'd be rather surprised if a company was hiring out large box vans (whether they are 3.5t or 7.5t) without a prominent height notice in the cab. It might even be compulsory these days for a 7.5t (and if not, it really should be).

Any vehicle over 3m must have a sign visible in the cab with the vehicle height displayed in feet and inches, but under 3m it isn't required, and there's no requirenent based on weight.
However, it would seem best practice for hire companies to have it displayed on commercial vehicles anyway, since the drivers may be unfamiliar with the vehicle they're driving.

 

[Murph]

However, it would seem best practice for hire companies to have it displayed on commercial vehicles anyway, since the drivers may be unfamiliar with the vehicle they're driving.

Yeah, exactly. It would be extremely foolish for a hire company not to have clear notices in the cab, regardless of legal requirement, and verbally inform the hirer of the height. Apart from anything else, it helps to ensure that any incident is squarely blamed on the driver (and not the hire company), if they can plainly demonstrate that the driver had no real excuse of ignorance (not that ignorance is ever a defence, but it's still good to take all reasonable steps to eliminate it).

I'm pretty sure that high roofed 3.5t Transit-type vans (basic van with a high roof, not a Luton type box as shown in the article) that I've hired in the past have had a notice.

 

[Oswyntail]

While I am fascinated by the technicalities described above, one would have thought that a driver with a brain cell, approaching a bridge weighed down with warning signs, in a van with which he is unfamiliar, might just have stopped and got out to check.

 

[Murph]

While I am fascinated by the technicalities described above, one would have thought that a driver with a brain cell, approaching a bridge weighed down with warning signs, in a van with which he is unfamiliar, might just have stopped and got out to check.

Oh, absolutely, yes! The common sense or possible legal need for an in-cab height warning notice makes no difference to it. Very basic common sense says that any competent driver (professional or amateur) should stop and check, and causing such an indecent is prima facie evidence of gross incompetence as a driver.

Whenever I'm driving an unfamiliar vehicle, particularly something wider, taller, or longer, I've always erred on the side of caution. Even just driving a low roof Transit, I've stopped and climbed out to eyeball one of the 2m-ish height restrictions into a car park, as it felt like it was a bit close (it was, but there was indeed clearance). Thirty to sixty seconds to stop, and either climb out or just stand up in the open cab door, is always time well spent if there's the slightest doubt.

 

[90019]

Very basic common sense says that any competent driver (professional or amateur) should stop and check

There are a lot of drivers out there that I definitely wouldn't describe as competent, and to whom common sense doesn't apply.