Bridge Bash Lymington Branch

[yorksrob]

Exactly. I don‘t see why the railway or its clients should have to cough up because:

a) road hauliers insist on ever larger vehicles (to the detriment of road safety and maintenance) and

b) some drivers (as appears to have been borne out on this thread) treat height restrictions as a suggested guideline rather than an instruction.

Make it come out of the road budget.

 

[Murph]

Exactly. I don‘t see why the railway or its clients should have to cough up because:

a) road hauliers insist on ever larger vehicles (to the detriment of road safety and maintenance) and

b) some drivers (as appears to have been borne out on this thread) treat height restrictions as a suggested guideline rather than an instruction.

Make it come out of the road budget.

Better still, just chuck a huge bridge improvement levy on the road tax of all vehicles over 8' in height, and on any such vehicles entering our ports. It's obviously very important to the drivers of these vehicles, since it's just too difficult for them to pay attention to such trivial things as signs, so I'm sure they will have no issues in coming up with the money for it!

 

[Llanigraham]

I was told of a bridge bash last year where NR claimed all their Delay Minutes Payments against the miscreant, and were paid! (allegedly)

I also know from friends that work at VOSA that they take particular notice of these events and have removed Operators Licences from some companies.

 

[kevconnor]

How about this: in the event of a bridge bash, the lorry's owner is fined £10,000 for every inch the lorry's height is over the height on the sign.

would the vehicle height be from before of after they took a scalping by going into a bridge?

 

[KBD1]

Yes, but many of these mickey mouse firms won't pay for it. No-one is going to force them to act responsibly, and the costs of their blunders are not passed on to those responsible, so it will keep happening. :-x

The police & courts are going to see that, as far as i'm aware. If it is recorded who strikes bridge, they are liable for any damage to strucural damage through insurances including delays. This is usually done through court cases.
That's what i;m led to believe anyway.

 

[martybabes]

The police & courts are going to see that, as far as i'm aware. If it is recorded who strikes bridge, they are liable for any damage to strucural damage through insurances including delays. This is usually done through court cases.
That's what i;m led to believe anyway.

It only goes to court if the parties cannot agree on a settlement figure.

The party responsible for the damage is the one who pays although indemnities are available through the use of insurance. This is why motor insurance is compulsory. However, if the driver/operator of the motor vehicle is driving in an irresponsible manner - by wilfully ignoring height restrictions, for example - the Ins Co may well be entitled to refuse cover. c/f if you leave your car keys in the ignition and the car is then TWOC'd, the Ins Co can step away and leave you to swallow your loss.

 

[Bedpan]

That would mean that there wouldn't be any point in having tp cover, because every time you crashed inio the back of somebody or had some other accident which resulted from your negligence ie was your fault, they would refuse indemnity! There is a "taking reasonable care" condition written into the theft section of a motor policy though, as you say, and there are instances where an indemnity issue would arise in the case of an accident,such as if the vehicle is not being used in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy.

 

[GearJammer]

a) road hauliers insist on ever larger vehicles (to the detriment of road safety and maintenance)

Please explain why larger vehicles are 'to the detriment of road safety' ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whose going to pay for it?

The railway, they chose to build over the road, the road was there first, it should'nt be the road authorities fault that the railway had no forward thinking in expecting larger vehicles on the road.

 

[Buttsy]

The railway, they chose to build over the road, the road was there first, it should'nt be the road authorities fault that the railway had no forward thinking in expecting larger vehicles on the road.

Most roads were simple tracks when the railways were built.

Surely it is the road haulage industry that should have taken account of the fact some bridges were not of sufficient height for their ever increasingly sized vehicles and ensured that the design of said vehicles allowed for the fact they could get under them.

Don't forget it was only in the late 70s, early 80s that the tonnage was increased for 32 (or 36) to 44 and so trucks had to take advatage of this.

Most low bridges have alternative routes marked for the HGV, yet truckers have ignored/missed them over the years. The Oxford station rail bridge tends to be struck once a year despite all the signs and alternative routes to the areas of the city that trucks can follow. I always though that was a purpose of a ring-road, so that trucks could use the most suitable exit for their destination, not the shortest route.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

The railway, they chose to build over the road, the road was there first, it should'nt be the road authorities fault that the railway had no forward thinking in expecting larger vehicles on the road.

That is a ridiculous response. When the railways were built, the largest things to be found on the roads were horses and wagons. Motor vehicles, of even the most basic kind, would not appear for another fifty years or more. forward thinking did not come into it and even a crystal ball might have clouded over at the idea of today's HGVs. The road lobby seem to think that they have a divine right to go where they will. This is not surprising since they were allowed free reign to compete with the railways, which were hidebound by the Common Carriers Act for so long. There are alternative routes avoiding low bridges, which are always well signposted. If HGV drivers cannot read warning signs then they should not be in charge of such vehicles.

 

[yorksrob]

Please explain why larger vehicles are 'to the detriment of road safety' ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The railway, they chose to build over the road, the road was there first, it should'nt be the road authorities fault that the railway had no forward thinking in expecting larger vehicles on the road.

The larger the vehicle, the more difficult to manouvre and the more difficult it is for drivers to see and respond to other road users.

With regard to costs, not only are the vast majority of road/rail interface incidents caused by road driver error, but also when the railways were built, overbridges were designed for the road traffic of the time. It is the road hauliers who have pushed for ever larger vehicles, therefore it is they who should foot the bill for changing that infrastructure.

 

[GearJammer]

The larger the vehicle, the more difficult to manouvre and the more difficult it is for drivers to see and respond to other road users.

Don't judge everyone by your own standards, some of us can manouvre these large vehicles with ease, its why we are called professionals and have lots of extra letters on are driving licences.

 

[HowardGWR]

Don't judge everyone by your own standards, some of us can manouvre these large vehicles with ease, its why we are called professionals and have lots of extra letters on are driving licences.

Ah a Bristolian I see.

 

[yorksrob]

Don't judge everyone by your own standards, some of us can manouvre these large vehicles with ease, its why we are called professionals and have lots of extra letters on are driving licences.

Are you saying you find it as easy to manouvre a large vehicle with as much ease as a smaller one ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

yesterday i took my 14'6 truck under a 14'3 bridge, and earlier in the week i took it under a 14'0 bridge..... so whos at fault?

This particular nuggat doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

 

[Antman]

Don't judge everyone by your own standards, some of us can manouvre these large vehicles with ease, its why we are called professionals and have lots of extra letters on are driving licences.

Here here! Artics are far more manouverable than smaller rigid trucks

 

[richw]

Are you saying you find it as easy to manouvre a large vehicle with as much ease as a smaller one ?

An Artic is a lot easier to manoeuvre than a rigid. Never driven one but where I used to work the rigid couldn't turn around in the loading area, Artics could turn easily.

Therefore that suggests that larger vehicles in some cases are easier to manoeuvre.

 

[Antman]

How about this: in the event of a bridge bash, the lorry's owner is fined £10,000 for every inch the lorry's height is over the height on the sign.

But how can the owner be held responsible for the actions of a driver who might not even be their employee?

 

[HSTEd]

But how can the owner be held responsible for the actions of a driver who might not even be their employee?

You could argue that the lorry company has a duty of care to ensure that they don't allow drivers who don't obey signs to get behind the wheel of their vehicles.

 

[Antman]

How's about the railway authority be instructed to increase all bridges to the national height of 16'6" to prevent them all?

Thats a bit like saying remove all level crossings, good idea in principal but not remotely practical
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You could argue that the lorry company has a duty of care to ensure that they don't allow drivers who don't obey signs to get behind the wheel of their vehicles.

Sorry but thats like saying a car hire company should be held responsible for the actions of people they hire cars too

 

[yorksrob]

Sorry but thats like saying a car hire cocessary licencempany should be held responsible for the actions of people they hire cars too

There's no comparison. An employee of a company is an agent of and acting on behalf of that company.

Hire companies have some duty of care in that they have to make sure that the customer has the necessary license and isn't steaming drunk when they drive off the forcourt, but other than that, the customer isn't acting on behalf of the company and is his own agent.

 

[Antman]

There's no comparison. An employee of a company is an agent of and acting on behalf of that company.

Hire companies have some duty of care in that they have to make sure that the customer has the necessary license and isn't steaming drunk when they drive off the forcourt, but other than that, the customer isn't acting on behalf of the company and is his own agent.

Somebody driving a Joe Bloggs Haulage Company lorry may not be a Joe Bloggs employee, there is a lot of sub contracting as well as the use of agency drivers.

In any case nobody knows that a driver is going to hit a low bridge until they actually do it

 

[GearJammer]

Are you saying you find it as easy to manouvre a large vehicle with as much ease as a smaller one ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


This particular nuggat doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Yes, i find the truck much easier with better visabilty, i can paralel park better in a truck than a car, and reversing is a doddle, its second nature to me.....

As for the bridge, does'nt inspire you with confidence? I can look at a gap, wether it be height or width and judge yes or no wether it will fit or not, and to date have never mis-judged and got it wrong, the fact that i pointed out that i went under these bridges without incident proved my judgement to be correct, i looked, i judged it will fit, and it did fit.

 

[Antman]

Yes, i find the truck much easier with better visabilty, i can paralel park better in a truck than a car, and reversing is a doddle, its second nature to me.....

As for the bridge, does'nt inspire you with confidence? I can look at a gap, wether it be height or width and judge yes or no wether it will fit or not, and to date have never mis-judged and got it wrong, the fact that i pointed out that i went under these bridges without incident proved my judgement to be correct, i looked, i judged it will fit, and it did fit.

I agree that in many ways artics are easier to drive than a car, people usually think I'm mad when I say that, but the general all round vision is just so much better.

Fair play to you if you can judge bridge heights just by looking at them, I'd rather play safe and be guided by the signage.

 

[yorksrob]

Somebody driving a Joe Bloggs Haulage Company lorry may not be a Joe Bloggs employee, there is a lot of sub contracting as well as the use of agency drivers.

In any case nobody knows that a driver is going to hit a low bridge until they actually do it

My employer deals with contractors who themselves have their own contractors, and in a very real sense, what goes on further down the foodchain is our responsibility. Yes, we might be able to refer to the responsibility of contractors for odd incidents, however, if such incidents become more frequent, it becomes more our responsibility for contracting them in the first place.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, i find the truck much easier with better visabilty, i can paralel park better in a truck than a car, and reversing is a doddle, its second nature to me.....

As for the bridge, does'nt inspire you with confidence? I can look at a gap, wether it be height or width and judge yes or no wether it will fit or not, and to date have never mis-judged and got it wrong, the fact that i pointed out that i went under these bridges without incident proved my judgement to be correct, i looked, i judged it will fit, and it did fit.

Well, I don't intend to discuss your own abilities, however, if there is a widespread assumption in the industry that it is up to individual truck drivers to decide whether or not they can fit below a bridge, regardless of the signage, it only takes a few with a misplaced sense of self confidence to misjudge these things, then you have a potentially large number of bridge bashes.

Perhaps this is precisely why there are so many of these incidents at the moment.

 

[Darren R]

I can look at a gap, wether it be height or width and judge yes or no wether it will fit or not, and to date have never mis-judged and got it wrong, the fact that i pointed out that i went under these bridges without incident proved my judgement to be correct, i looked, i judged it will fit, and it did fit.

Another insight into the mind of a trucker - and again it explains why bridge strikes are so common. I look forward to reading about the first time your unbelievably cocky attitude leads to you being firmly wedged beneath a bridge you misjudged. Either you're a wind-up merchant or an idiot. I'm not sure which, but as a rail passenger sick of suffering disruption caused by lorries stuck under well-sign-posted low bridges, I hope your driving standards are better than your spelling and grammar!

 

[martybabes]

That would mean that there wouldn't be any point in having tp cover, because every time you crashed inio the back of somebody or had some other accident which resulted from your negligence ie was your fault, they would refuse indemnity!

Indeed. But I did say "wilfully" and "may" in my post, both terms being carefully chosen.

 

[tra1nsp0tter]

Another insight into the mind of a trucker - and again it explains why bridge strikes are so common. I look forward to reading about the first time your unbelievably cocky attitude leads to you being firmly wedged beneath a bridge you misjudged. Either you're a wind-up merchant or an idiot. I'm not sure which, but as a rail passenger sick of suffering disruption caused by lorries stuck under well-sign-posted low bridges, I hope your driving standards are better than your spelling and grammar!

The man is not an "idiot". He is an experienced HGV driver, as is my father, who has been driving HGV's for over 30 years now & has never once struck a bridge. You obviously have never been in a lorry, let alone driven one.
So Darren, you are telling me that you can't safely judge the height or width of your vehicle, be that a car, van, lorry? So, if you are driving your vehicle, & see a gap between 2 other vehicles that you need to drive through, you are saying that because you need to judge the distance between your vehicle & the others..that makes you an 'idiot'???!

I think the opinions of the "anti-trucks" lobby on here need to get a grip.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

The man is not an "idiot". He is an experienced HGV driver, as is my father, who has been driving HGV's for over 30 years now & has never once struck a bridge. You obviously have never been in a lorry, let alone driven one.
So Darren, you are telling me that you can't safely judge the height or width of your vehicle, be that a car, van, lorry? So, if you are driving your vehicle, & see a gap between 2 other vehicles that you need to drive through, you are saying that because you need to judge the distance between your vehicle & the others..that makes you an 'idiot'???!

I think the opinions of the "anti-trucks" lobby on here need to get a grip.

I don't detect an 'anti - trucks' lobby but a rather sensible attitude towards drivers who believe that the instructions on road signs are, somehow, optional. Too many road users, not just HGV drivers, routinely disobey traffic lights and misuse level crossings because, in their judgment, it's okay to do so. It isn't and there can be no valid excuse for a driver who 'knows better'.

Congratulations to your father but the sheer number of bridge strikes shows that there are a lot of drivers out there who do not obey the rules and cause chaos for others.

 

[richw]

I think the problem also lies with the fact that truck drivers have learnt that the signs aren't accurate reflections of the real clearance. Perhaps if the signs provide actual heights truck drivers wouldn't try their luck.

 

[HowardGWR]

I think the problem also lies with the fact that truck drivers have learnt that the signs aren't accurate reflections of the real clearance. Perhaps if the signs provide actual heights truck drivers wouldn't try their luck.

Perhaps making a strike a criminal offence of negligence could concentrate the minds. I have been shocked by what I have read here over the last week. I appreciate the HGV drivers' honesty in posting, - but oh dear!