Same bridge struck three times in under a week

[edwin_m]

When I lived in Medway nearly forty years ago there was a van hire firm that went to great efforts to tell their customers that they were not INSURED if they hit the railway bridge at the junction at the end of their road. So yes insurance does already run away from likely risks !.

This may have been a convenient simplification. I believe insurers have to provide the legal minimum cover (third party), although the hire company might be hit for the damage to the van itself and come after the hirer for that.

 

[thejuggler]

Lots of potential reasons.

Roadworks, diversion route, incorrect satnav map updates, new drivers contract at local company, new company in the area?

I did hear of one issue with a low bridge on a road located on a steep street, the incline started at one edge of the bridge. Going one way the artic wagon and load fitted under the bridge. unfortunately on the return the angle of the load and street approaching the bridge meant it didn't.

 

[Harpo]

The bridge in Ely has high viz, warning signs, signs that flash up to turn back when an overheight vehicle is detected. From observation, the majority of the vehicles that hit the bridge are rental/hire vans with the protruding fibreglass (?} roof that is only a little higher than the clearance.
Presumably the combination of lack of familiarity of driving the vehicle with it looking like the van might just get under is what leads the driver to proceed.
E.g. https://www.elystandard.co.uk/news/23889564.ely-railway-bridge-struck-today-enterprise-van/

Could this be the case for this bridge?

In the past, the rapid responders at Ely became skilled at getting stuck vehicles out. Let the tyres down, tell the driver to rev the engine and drop the clutch, then jump up and down inside the vehicle.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's not going to happen, but I think this is a case where draconian measures would actually reduce the incidence by a massive amount.
For example, measures including but not necessarily limited to

• Legal powers to seize and sell the vehicle and its contents
• Automatic disqualification of two years for the driver
• Ability to recover, as a punitive measure, twice the total costs of all damage, road delays and rail disruption with the company and driver being jointly liable

The only excuses acceptable for the driver would be an incorrect vehicle height plate or bridge height plate
The only excuse acceptable for the company would be an incorrect bridge height plate

It’s not going to happen for the simple reason that it wouldn’t work. Nobody sets out to crash into a bridge, and many drivers of commercial behicles that do so lose their jobs. There is no driver out there that‘s going to take even greater care than they already do just because the consequence is higher than it already is.

If bridge bashes are becoming a frequent occurrence at this location, surely there must be a case for erecting steel 'crash gantries' across the road either side of the bridge....so that the vehicle will be damaged but not the bridge and train services will be able to continue running normally. The use of such devices is much more widespread on the continent than it is here.

This comes up frequently. There’s two issues with that:

1) liability for maintenance of said gantry
2) overall safety - if a collision knocks it over; yes the railway will probably be protected, but damage to other vehicles and people; is much more likely than if a vehicle hits a bridge (which generally is a low consequence incident)

 

[Titfield]

My suggested actions are:

1. The driver has to attend a driver conduct hearing before the Traffic Commissioner. The driver should be in jeopardy of losing his vocational driving licence entitlement for 6 months, and then be required to retake and pass the practical part of the driving test before the entitlement is restored.
2. The Operator Transport Manager has to attend a hearing before the Traffic Commissioner. The TM should lose their good repute for 12 months after which it can only be regained once he / she retakes and and passes the TM CPC examination.
3. The operator licence has a condition attached by which the licence can not be varied to increase the number of vehicles or open a new operating centre for 12 months.
4. All operators should be required to have a map showing all low bridges within a 50 mile radius on display at the operating centre where it is clearly visible to all drivers when signing on.

 

[AndrewE]

My suggested actions are:

1. The driver has to attend a driver conduct hearing before the Traffic Commissioner. The driver should be in jeopardy of losing his vocational driving licence entitlement for 6 months, and then be required to retake and pass the practical part of the driving test before the entitlement is restored.
2. The Operator Transport Manager has to attend a hearing before the Traffic Commissioner. The TM should lose their good repute for 12 months after which it can only be regained once he / she retakes and and passes the TM CPC examination.
3. The operator licence has a condition attached by which the licence can not be varied to increase the number of vehicles or open a new operating centre for 12 months.
4. All operators should be required to have a map showing all low bridges within a 50 mile radius on display at the operating centre where it is clearly visible to all drivers when signing on.

but nothing to absolutely require the "operator" to ensure the driver has a suitable professional satnav issued by the company? Surely #4 has been superceded by technology?

My understanding is that lots of drivers are owner-occupiers driving tractor units in the livery of the firms they are contracted to and hence aren't prepared to (can't?) pay for the correct Satnav out of their own pockets.

 

[Peter Sarf]

My suggested actions are:

1. The driver has to attend a driver conduct hearing before the Traffic Commissioner. The driver should be in jeopardy of losing his vocational driving licence entitlement for 6 months, and then be required to retake and pass the practical part of the driving test before the entitlement is restored.
2. The Operator Transport Manager has to attend a hearing before the Traffic Commissioner. The TM should lose their good repute for 12 months after which it can only be regained once he / she retakes and and passes the TM CPC examination.
3. The operator licence has a condition attached by which the licence can not be varied to increase the number of vehicles or open a new operating centre for 12 months.
4. All operators should be required to have a map showing all low bridges within a 50 mile radius on display at the operating centre where it is clearly visible to all drivers when signing on.

All a bit drastic.
Fifty mile radius of where/what ?.
HGVs roam the whole country from their base.

I get the impression that the penalties/costs for hitting a bridge are already stiff enough.

So what is the problem that lets this still happen ?.
Is is not necessarily sloppy driving so punishment is a rather pointless exercise.
If punishment is going to do anything then it is going to reduce the number of HGV drivers of which there is already a shortage.

I am not pro HGV and wish we still had the lower axle weight but I am convinced preventing bridge bashes is not straightforward. As @Bald Rick says - the penalties are already there. We need to look at how this kind of mistake comes about.

I feel it is likely that humans do not generally consider headroom as I have alluded to before. If that is a deeply ingrained feature of the human brain then we have to accept that weakness and find ways round it.
AI in the cab ? - maybe one day.
Reduce the number of low bridges ? - raise where practicable the worst victims.

BUT for drivers who can be proven to be trying it on by slowing on approach and then squeezing through even if no damage then perhaps we should be using a stick there.

 

[PG]

That does look like "just another bridge".
And the trees do not help.

Note also the 14' 0" prohibition sign in advance of the bridge, it appears to be to the left of the pavement in some bushes. It is slightly in the rear of a bus stop so is likely to be obscured whenever a bus stops there.

 

[piers1234]

My suggested actions are:

1. The driver has to attend a driver conduct hearing before the Traffic Commissioner. The driver should be in jeopardy of losing his vocational driving licence entitlement for 6 months, and then be required to retake and pass the practical part of the driving test before the entitlement is restored.
2. The Operator Transport Manager has to attend a hearing before the Traffic Commissioner. The TM should lose their good repute for 12 months after which it can only be regained once he / she retakes and and passes the TM CPC examination.
3. The operator licence has a condition attached by which the licence can not be varied to increase the number of vehicles or open a new operating centre for 12 months.
4. All operators should be required to have a map showing all low bridges within a 50 mile radius on display at the operating centre where it is clearly visible to all drivers when signing on.

100% agree with your post.

But unfortunately the crime of bridge striking isn't taken very seriously.

At best the driver may get a £100 fine and 3 points.

 

[Jakko542]

Speaking as a Transport Manager who's been in the game for what probably amounts to far too long, there is never any excuse for a truck to hit a low bridge.
I would apportion a fair amount of the blame to drivers using native Google Maps and suchlike on their phones for navigation purposes. My lads are told during their induction that this is not acceptable and that as professional drivers I expect them to come to work with a proper truck nav as one of the tools of their trade. Similarly I make it very clear to any agencies I work with what my expectations are and have drivers checked when they book on.
Furthermore, planners must be aware of and warn drivers of any hazards near to collection / delivery points. That information really isn't hard to come by if you're doing your job properly.
The TCs do, quite rightly, take a rather dim view of operators who have a lot of bridge strikes and all firms should have a robust written policy which is properly communicated to drivers and office staff alike.

 

[AndrewE]

100% agree with your post.

But unfortunately the crime of bridge striking isn't taken very seriously.

At best the driver may get a £100 fine and 3 points.

so how about making the use of a suitable professional satnav absolutely mandatory? I can't understand why it is not - and coming from a railway perspective, I don't see why they shouldn't interface with the truck engine as well and cut it out if a conflict is imminent.

 

[158756]

Yes that is probably what happened in this incident. It looks like a flat bed truck with a container on it.

It is the drivers responsibility to check the height of there truck. There is no excuse for it.

BTW Im an ex-trucker.

Most truckers I've known in the past didn't even get fined when they had a bridge strike !!!

I think it's a 9'6" high cube container, as was another pictured striking the same bridge in November. I'd guess an 8'6" container would probably fit? (With a 14ft bridge that leaves 5'6" for the trailer)

Possibly the driver has been under before with a shipping container and forgot this one was taller?

 

[AndrewE]

I think it's a 9'6" high cube container, as was another pictured striking the same bridge in November. I'd guess an 8'6" container would probably fit? (With a 14ft bridge that leaves 5'6" for the trailer)

Possibly the driver has been under before with a shipping container and forgot this one was taller?

picking up on the mandatory use of modern technology, couldn't depot exits be fitted with height measuring devices which are then programmed to update the satnav I referred to in post #41?

It's clear that drivers can't be trusted to take note of the height of their load and enter it into their satnav themselves...

 

[Jakko542]

picking up on the mandatory use of modern technology, couldn't depot exits be fitted with height measuring devices which are then programmed to update the satnav I referred to in post #41?

It's clear that drivers can't be trusted to take note of the height of their load and enter it into their satnav themselves...

That would work fine for loads which companies run from their own operating centre. The reality is a tad more complex.
However, I stick by my comment upthread that good operators manage this sort of behaviour out of their organisation.

 

[AndrewE]

That would work fine for loads which companies run from their own operating centre. The reality is a tad more complex.
However, I stick by my comment upthread that good operators manage this sort of behaviour out of their organisation.

the trouble is that there aren't enough of that sort of manager, or responsible operators. Othwerwise why do we keep having these threads - several times a year it seems to me.
I was proposing a change to the regs which will enforce the use of a suitable device, a bit like AWS on the railway - but we know that the private companies fought tooth and nail against the cost of that too...

 

[Peter Sarf]

picking up on the mandatory use of modern technology, couldn't depot exits be fitted with height measuring devices which are then programmed to update the satnav I referred to in post #41?

It's clear that drivers can't be trusted to take note of the height of their load and enter it into their satnav themselves...

I think this is the way to go.
But that will require all SatNavs, and departure points to be compatible. I wonder how feasible this is ?.
It also relies on the HGV SatNav being kept up-to-date (although I doubt bridges get lower with time a new one might appear).

This would not help with busses on the wrong route. Except that modern bus computers could possibly know their height (it is a not a variable after all). Then it is a matter of the bus knowing its location - not always very accurate in my experience but probably just needs to be something done better.

 

[StoneRoad]

For every low-loader taking away restored railway vehicles [and a boat] from my workshop - after the driver [and the mate] had finished chaining down the load and tidying up, almost the last thing they did before driving away was to double-check the height and record it.

 

[OscarH]

The difference in reaction in this thread compared to eg a thread about a spad is very stark.

Sure if a driver keeps doing it, it's a sign that perhaps they aren't suitable for the job, but mistakes happen and an appropriate development plan is a much more appropriate outcome. I'm sure if we had a thread about immediately sacking a train driver and giving them a court date for a spad there would be anger.

 

[Magdalen Road]

As if by magic I got out of Ely station and guess what I saw!
Yes another ripped up van. Usual type.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jan 2025 ==

I am not sure this would work terribly well, currently the ownner/operator does incur the costs of repairing their road vehicle.

Well - I confess - I am a careful person BUT :-
I am 6ft 2in tall. In my house was a doorway that was about an inch too low.
I hit that door frame with my head quite a few times, sometimes hearing a crack.
I figured I would learn.
Eventually after about a year I gave in - I rolled up newspaper and hung it over the edge of the door frame to lessen the inevitable blow.
Irony is I then NEVER hit my head on the door frame again for another fifteen odd years presumably because it did not look like a normal door frame any more.
I then got the door frame RAISED.

My point is that if I could incur personal pain more than once and still not learn to be careful then what chance is there of zero bridge bashes just because of punishment. Granted the yellow paint etc and signs might help (just like the rolled up newspaper worked) but I would argue it is not necessarily punishment that will prevent it. How many drivers are repeat offenders. How many drivers are on an unfamiliar route ?.

I think us humans are not great at looking upwards and checking things.
My shorter friends used to bang their head on entering the "Little Gem" - a long gone real ale pub in Aylesford near Maidstone. I never banged my head because I was taller and it was obvious enough to me - as in literally in my face !. So I am no more stupid than others.

So I think we need to understand the human weakness to be able to address the problem.

Granted there will be repeat offenders and those that can be seen to slow down and then try to risk it.

But in most cases I assume more damage is done to the road vehicle than to the bridge ?. Or at least significant enough damage that there is a cost of repairs to the road vehicle. So there is already some incentive to get it right.

When I lived in Medway nearly forty years ago there was a van hire firm that went to great efforts to tell their customers that they were not INSURED if they hit the railway bridge at the junction at the end of their road. So yes insurance does already run away from likely risks !.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jan 2025 ==


That does look like "just another bridge".
And the trees do not help.

Not sure why my post is quoted there as I didn't suggest charging anyone.

 

[Peter Sarf]

As if by magic I got out of Ely station and guess what I saw!
Yes another ripped up van. Usual type.
View attachment 172458

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jan 2025 ==


Not sure why my post is quoted there as I didn't suggest charging anyone.

Apologies the post you referred to of mine got messed up. My own experience of a hire company very near a low bridge was supposed to be there. Amended original post. And your photo is of exactly the sort of van that would come a cropper !. It was a long obscure way round to avoid that bridge that led straight to a main road !.

 

[Edsmith]

If bridge bashes are becoming a frequent occurrence at this location, surely there must be a case for erecting steel 'crash gantries' across the road either side of the bridge....so that the vehicle will be damaged but not the bridge and train services will be able to continue running normally. The use of such devices is much more widespread on the continent than it is here.

Surely there's a danger of a lorry knocking the 'crash gantry' down and hitting whatever happens to be coming the other way at the time?

 

[AndrewE]

Surely there's a danger of a lorry knocking the 'crash gantry' down and hitting whatever happens to be coming the other way at the time?

That depends on how strong you make the gantry...

 

[Dieseldriver]

The difference in reaction in this thread compared to eg a thread about a spad is very stark.

Sure if a driver keeps doing it, it's a sign that perhaps they aren't suitable for the job, but mistakes happen and an appropriate development plan is a much more appropriate outcome. I'm sure if we had a thread about immediately sacking a train driver and giving them a court date for a spad there would be anger.

Agreed. The fact that these incidents keep happening suggest there are issues that need to be looked into that are deeper than ‘only an idiot would do it’. If the railway industry persisted with this attitude we wouldn’t have the fairly good safety record that we do today as any incident involving human factors would have just lazily been blamed on the member of staff involved, rather than seriously looking into the root causes and addressing them.
The vast majority of people who make errors (whether they be a Lorry Driver, Train Driver or Signaller etc) don’t do so out of wilful neglect.

 

[Magdalen Road]

Apologies the post you referred to of mine got messed up. My own experience of a hire company very near a low bridge was supposed to be there. Amended original post. And your photo is of exactly the sort of van that would come a cropper !. It was a long obscure way round to avoid that bridge that led straight to a main road !.

No probs.
The van provided the perfect illustration of my point. 99% of the vehicle strikes here are probably the “oh it should just fit under” shortly followed by a loud crunch. I was actually behind one a few years ago that had stopped just a little way in and managed to scrape out again. Not much sympathy from the traffic queue.

 

[Purple Train]

I live near a very similar bridge that has relatively frequent bashes - again, almost always by the exact type of van shown here. It has large fluorescent "low bridge" signs, a speed hump on approach, an automatically-triggered flashing sign saying "Overheight Vehicle Turn Back" with the height of the bridge on it... and I've still encountered two decapitated vans and more than one high-top Transit come to a stop with a scrape and back out again. The physical sign above the bridge stating its height has been knocked back by a previous impact, admittedly, but all the other warnings are intact. The area around the bridge is still littered with assorted fibreglass debris. I probably should make a "Van Driver Has Hit Bridge Again" sign to put up at the nearest road junction to alleviate the traffic chaos it causes!

The problem as I see it with very low bridges like that is that van drivers presumably don't encounter many bridges that are too low for them to pass under, and no amount of safety features could eliminate these incidents beyond closing the road entirely. It's probably best to do what's been done at my local bridge - put huge protection beams across the carriageway and at least the trains can run and the pedestrians get through.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I live near a very similar bridge that has relatively frequent bashes - again, almost always by the exact type of van shown here. It has large fluorescent "low bridge" signs, a speed hump on approach, an automatically-triggered flashing sign saying "Overheight Vehicle Turn Back" with the height of the bridge on it... and I've still encountered two decapitated vans and more than one high-top Transit come to a stop with a scrape and back out again. The physical sign above the bridge stating its height has been knocked back by a previous impact, admittedly, but all the other warnings are intact. The area around the bridge is still littered with assorted fibreglass debris. I probably should make a "Van Driver Has Hit Bridge Again" sign to put up at the nearest road junction to alleviate the traffic chaos it causes!

The problem as I see it with very low bridges like that is that van drivers presumably don't encounter many bridges that are too low for them to pass under, and no amount of safety features could eliminate these incidents beyond closing the road entirely. It's probably best to do what's been done at my local bridge - put huge protection beams across the carriageway and at least the trains can run and the pedestrians get through.

With the fibreglass body Luton vans that are quite common in hire firms I suspect the driver is used to a car (that would be me) AND the fibreglass will not be strong enough to damage a railway over bridge anyway. So those cases are not serious for the railway.

I think the worst would be a double deck bus full of people. Even that would probably not hurt the bridge as buses seem to be very flimsy above the chassis but for the passengers - not likely to be nice !. Next worst is a container or other solid steel object - that probably risks the integrity of the rail tracks.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I probably should make a "Van Driver Has Hit Bridge Again" sign to put up at the nearest road junction to alleviate the traffic chaos it causes!

Or something like this, perhaps?


Cartoon of signboard stating "0 days since last accident")

 

[Dave W]

The vast majority of people who make errors (whether they be a Lorry Driver, Train Driver or Signaller etc) don’t do so out of wilful neglect.

Agreed. I dread to think how many cock ups I make at work in any given period, but they're mostly resolved by email - I would be far too worried about making an error to drive professionally (train or lorry)

I would apportion a fair amount of the blame to drivers using native Google Maps and suchlike on their phones for navigation purposes. My lads are told during their induction that this is not acceptable and that as professional drivers I expect them to come to work with a proper truck nav as one of the tools of their trade. Similarly I make it very clear to any agencies I work with what my expectations are and have drivers checked when they book on.

Bit of a tangent but Mrs W used Google Maps as a Sat Nav which conveniently sent her down a school street during restricted times just before Christmas. Waze refuses to send me up that street.

... And a happy new year it was, too

 

[Mugby]

That depends on how strong you make the gantry...

Surely there's a danger of a lorry knocking the 'crash gantry' down and hitting whatever happens to be coming the other way at the time?

Instead of a solid steel gantry at bridge height, use a row of heavy duty steel chains hanging down instead.

 

[PG]

Showing my advancing years here, all the sat nav discussion makes me wonder if people no longer :

• pay attention to road signs or their surroundings?
• learn how to read maps?

Instead of a solid steel gantry at bridge height, use a row of heavy duty steel chains hanging down instead.

Which have the potential to cause significant injuries to upper deck bus passengers.