Bridge Bash Lymington Branch

[GearJammer]

Maybe the problem is actually with the rail industry...... no im serious, hear me out, trucks hitting bridges is'nt actually that common, you don't hear about it EVERY day on numerous occasions compared to say cars hitting each other which is so common that it just is'nt news, it just happens occasionally, so, truck hits bridge, incident gets reported Network Rail stop the trains to inspect bridge causing delays..... now on how many occasions has a bridge been hit and actually been damaged to the point where trains can't run over it coz i don't actually know of any?

 

[yorksrob]

Given that trucks are very large objects travelling at speed, it would be negligent of NR not to chack that a safety critical structure such as a bridge hadn‘t been damaged by a bridge strike. The onus should be on motorists not to drive into them in the first place.

 

[Murph]

It's essential to check the bridges after they have been hit, as bridges are not actually firmly secured in place, or designed to withstand being smacked by a 40t vehicle from the sides. They float on lubricated pads or rollers, something which is required to cope with the natural expansion and contraction of their materials. A bridge strike can cause misalignment which could potentially cause a derailment or make one of the running lines out of gauge with adjacent lines or structures. Even if the bridge doesn't get badly pushed out of alignment, the structure is primarily designed to resist gravity loads from above, not 40t of marauding HGV from the sides, so it's quite possible for the beams to be damaged to the point where they lose some of their design strength.

Look at the recent road bridge disaster near Seattle, for an extreme example of what can happen with a rogue HGV being driven negligently. Admittedly, that bridge was not the best, but it was still doing ok before the HGV ripped out some structure.

 

[martybabes]

Perhaps making a strike a criminal offence

It is.

Compo is available thro the civil courts.

 

[deltic1989]

Gear Jammer: I am more than certain that you have many more years of experience than myself driving HGV's, and normally I would respect your opinion on all matters HGV.
However in this instance I cannot respect your opinion.
The way I see it (and some may disagree), when I get into my truck which has the companies name on the cab door in six inch high letters, as a professional driver and, a representative of my company, I have to uphold certain standards of driving.
I feel that passing under a bridge marked 14'3" in a 14'6" truck is below the standards that the driving public expect from people who earn their living driving these vehicles.
I consider that I am capable of judging weather my vehicle will fit somewhere fairly well, however if a road sign says that my vehicle is too tall I'm not going to argue with it, regardless of how pessimistic the sign may be.
The way I see it I am driving tens of thousands of pounds of someone else's property (Including Unit, Trailer and, Load), it's not mine to take risks with.
I would rather take a detour around the houses and arrive with the truck in two pieces, than take a risk and turn a curtain sider into a hopper, and probably lose my licence in the process.
On the subject of sat-nav's they can be a pain in the backside. I prefer to use mine in addition to a proper map rather than instead of, plus I have a road atlas that shows the heights of low bridges so I simply plan my route around them.
Granted i have only been less than 2 years behind the wheel of a truck, and I have had an accident (although this was found to be the fault of the other vehicle) but I have not yet hit a bridge and I fully plan to keep it that way, by avoiding low bridges like the plague.

 

[34D]

I find it easier to reverse buses that to reverse my car. At car parks etc I always seem to need to shuffle forwards then backwards again to get the car parked properly, yet I can do it with a 40ft bus/coach with no issues.

 

[Tomnick]

Maybe the problem is actually with the rail industry...... no im serious, hear me out, trucks hitting bridges is'nt actually that common, you don't hear about it EVERY day on numerous occasions compared to say cars hitting each other which is so common that it just is'nt news, it just happens occasionally, so, truck hits bridge, incident gets reported Network Rail stop the trains to inspect bridge causing delays..... now on how many occasions has a bridge been hit and actually been damaged to the point where trains can't run over it coz i don't actually know of any?

I've been watching this thread in slight disbelief, but now I'm convinced that you're just taking the piddle. So - it's ok for vehicles to strike bridges, with lots of potential for injury to people and damage to the infrastructure, and the rail industry should take the blame for any resulting delays for having the cheek to check that it's safe to continue running trains? As it happens, there's dispensation at some bridges to continue running trains under specified conditions whilst waiting for someone to inspect the bridge - the process to individually consider each bridge's suitability for dispensation no doubt justified by the extent of the delays previously caused by so-called professional drivers. I wonder how many of them reckoned that they could reliably judge the height of the opening and chose to ignore the posted height limit?

 

[GearJammer]

Gear Jammer: I am more than certain that you have many more years of experience than myself driving HGV's, and normally I would respect your opinion on all matters HGV.
However in this instance I cannot respect your opinion.
The way I see it (and some may disagree), when I get into my truck which has the companies name on the cab door in six inch high letters, as a professional driver and, a representative of my company, I have to uphold certain standards of driving.
I feel that passing under a bridge marked 14'3" in a 14'6" truck is below the standards that the driving public expect from people who earn their living driving these vehicles.
I consider that I am capable of judging weather my vehicle will fit somewhere fairly well, however if a road sign says that my vehicle is too tall I'm not going to argue with it, regardless of how pessimistic the sign may be.
The way I see it I am driving tens of thousands of pounds of someone else's property (Including Unit, Trailer and, Load), it's not mine to take risks with.
I would rather take a detour around the houses and arrive with the truck in two pieces, than take a risk and turn a curtain sider into a hopper, and probably lose my licence in the process.
On the subject of sat-nav's they can be a pain in the backside. I prefer to use mine in addition to a proper map rather than instead of, plus I have a road atlas that shows the heights of low bridges so I simply plan my route around them.
Granted i have only been less than 2 years behind the wheel of a truck, and I have had an accident (although this was found to be the fault of the other vehicle) but I have not yet hit a bridge and I fully plan to keep it that way, by avoiding low bridges like the plague.

"I feel that passing under a bridge marked 14'3" in a 14'6" truck is below the standards that the driving public expect from people who earn their living driving these vehicles"

The driving public have no standards.... surely you must have worked that out and seen it for yourself by now? The public WILL NOT look at you and say 'look, hes taking an overheight vehicle past the sign' they won't care, they won't notice.... unless you hit it, they will just sit there and fret that you are in there way!

 

[ainsworth74]

"I feel that passing under a bridge marked 14'3" in a 14'6" truck is below the standards that the driving public expect from people who earn their living driving these vehicles"

The driving public have no standards.... surely you must have worked that out and seen it for yourself by now? The public WILL NOT look at you and say 'look, hes taking an overheight vehicle past the sign' they won't care, they won't notice.... unless you hit it, they will just sit there and fret that you are in there way!

Is not an excuse for ignoring the sign in the first place...

I find it quite shocking that someone who drives professionally would just ignore an offical warning sign so casually as some here are suggesting.

 

[martybabes]

One wonders what other signs and regs he chooses to ignore.
Here are a few:
speed limits (as well as vehicle limits)
no entry
no motor vehicles
no overtaking
driver's hours

And then we turn our minds to pedestrian crossings - does he ignore pedestrian priority on these? Does he even give way approaching a roundabout?

To ignore the height restriction clearly marked on a bridge (and let us not forget the vehicle's height is also displayed in the cab) simply because of an "I know better" attitude is reckless in the extreme. That attitude will, eventually, lead to his downfall and an appearance in court. Let us all hope it is for a matter that does not involve someone else's life, but his own liberty and bank balance may well be severely compromised.

His admissions on here may well assist a conviction (or influence a sentencing) when the time comes. People would do well to remember that.

 

[notadriver]

Sadly this 'I know better' attitude seems more prevalent in professional drivers and perhaps truckers to a greater extent because unlike coach drivers they don't have someone watching them most of the time.

Of course there are many bad drivers of smaller vehicles with the same attitude, maybe a car or van but I hazard a guess that the consequences of their decisions and actions are far less than for someone in a large vehicle most of the time.

 

[Llanigraham]

I suggest GearJammer reads this publication and looks at the pictures:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ata/file/28628/bridgestrikestransmanagers.pdf
and:
http://www.rssb.co.uk/sitecollectiondocuments/pdf/reports/Bridge Strikes - Special Topic Report.pdf