Bridge Strike - Glasgow Cook Street 14 Dec 2024

[alxndr]

Let's not ignore that the number of incidents has already been significantly reduced by the introduction of width restrictions. Prior to their introduction there was an average of 5 bridge strikes per year, since then there has been between an average of 1.3 incidents a year. Even ignoring the covid years where there was less traffic that's still a reduction of over half.

Looking on Google Maps, if you close that section of Cook Street to Westbound traffic, traffic can still enter the ramp to the M8 by going down Eglinton Street, then Nelson Street, & Tradeston Street to Cook Street, or reverse the traffic flow of both Wallace Street & Cook Street, just a suggestion.

Forcing all traffic to cross Wallace Street isn't ideal as it's likely to cause knock on effects and traffic to back up further onto Eglinton Street. The benefit of using Cook Street is that it doesn't cross any other roads and separates the M8 northbound traffic from the majority of the M8 southbound and M74 traffic. Nelson Street is already the busier street of the two.

I can't see anyway of switching Cook Street and Wallace Street without causing issues either with the way they connect up to the motorway ramps. Sending all traffic up to Nelson Street rather than sharing it with Wallace Street is again, not ideal, especially as this is area already backs up. Switching Cook Street to the other direction doesn't necessarily fix the issue either, although avoids the problem of a driver possibly thinking they're in the clear because they've made it under the first bridge.

If road layout changes are to be made I think the only viable options are to either close the WCML bridge entirely and force all traffic down Salkeld Street, or falsely reduce the height/width of the WCML bridge to only allow vehicles which will clear the Ayr line bridge to turn left there.

 

[TUC]

The railway created the problem by building the bridge and should reasonably take responsibility for a solution perhaps utilising alternatives and removing the bridge difficult though that will be.

How is the railway responsible? Is the local authority responsible for every incident involving a vehicle that gets stuck under one of its bridges? If you drive a vehicle you are responsible for paying due care and attention.

 

[Falcon1200]

The railway created the problem by building the bridge and should reasonably take responsibility for a solution perhaps utilising alternatives and removing the bridge difficult though that will be.

Is this meant to be serious? How do you suggest the 10 trains an hour (off-peak, each way) which cross the bridge should run were it to be removed? There is an alternative route perfectly suitable for double deck buses, if only they used it.....

How is the railway responsible? Is the local authority responsible for every incident involving a vehicle that gets stuck under one of its bridges? If you drive a vehicle you are responsible for paying due care and attention.

Indeed.

 

[Peter0124]

Maybe they should just close the road. According to openstreetmap, the subway does indeed travel underneath and I very much doubt you'd be able to heighten the bridge as the track is on the approach to Glasgow Central.

 

[Buzby]

Maybe they should just close the road. According to openstreetmap, the subway does indeed travel underneath and I very much doubt you'd be able to heighten the bridge as the track is on the approach to Glasgow Central.

As previously mentioned, the gradients to not make much sense here - the track to Central reduces its elevation to reach the next overbridge (which IS DDB friendly), then increases after it to cross the river. This must mean the Cook St Bridge is wasteful of space & supports of the track above - the use of the supporting pillars on each side would show there were possibly weight issues on the original structure.

 

[Oxfordblues]

I wonder how many bus passengers who might habitually travel in the upper deck will this week think twice and stay on the lower deck, just in case.

 

[Buzby]

I wonder how many bus passengers who might habitually travel in the upper deck will this week think twice and stay on the lower deck, just in case

Having travelled twice daily for many years this very route (it was never an issue on the return), I was very aware of the issue and was prepared to dive to the floor should an early turn be made. I believe one of them was rebuilt as an open top sightseeing bus for GCT.

 

[Oxfordblues]

In 1974 a bus-enthusiast fellow student joined a group of young people who purchased a SELNEC (ex-Salford) PD2 double-decker bus. Before they took it out for any trips my friend was tasked with meticulously compiling a detailed map showing every restricted-headroom bridge within driving distance. There must have been a list supplied by the AA or local councils, I'm not sure, but the map was closely scrutinised before any itineraries could be planned.

Fifty years later, with all the streetview and satnav technology we never had, it's baffling that we still get bridge-bashes.

 

[Robertj21a]

Having travelled twice daily for many years this very route (it was never an issue on the return), I was very aware of the issue and was prepared to dive to the floor should an early turn be made. I believe one of them was rebuilt as an open top sightseeing bus for GCT.

I'm surprised they don't use single deckers on that route.

 

[Acfb]

A man has been disqualified from driving for one year for crashing a double decker bus into a railway bridge, which left a number of his passengers injured.

This happened 19 months ago. I remember seeing about this but not sure what the 'diversions' had to do with anything.

 

[Buzby]

There was an on-street parade/sporting possession or similar that caused a temporary diversion on the various routes into town. I recall at the time it was stated he was unfamiliar with the off-route plan and ended up turning into Cook Street. From the reports I believe the experience shattered him, as well as (of course) losing his job with First.

 

[Peter0124]

But surely they read the signs beforehand and if they are over the height limit they safely stop, and turn back if possible?

 

[Buzby]

But surely they read the signs beforehand

Easy to say in retrospect, but the sneaky thing about Cook Street is the WCML bridge IS high enough, but the second, isn’t. A slight miscalculation that if you got through the first, why not the second?

 

[Carntyne]

Easy to say in retrospect, but the sneaky thing about Cook Street is the WCML bridge IS high enough, but the second, isn’t. A slight miscalculation that if you got through the first, why not the second?

The seven signs, warning chevrons, road furniture and flashing variable message system warning you of the restricted height/width? And your in cab warning system on the bus.

 

[Buzby]

I cannot be the only person in the world to not being aware of warning signs and alerts because I was either inattentive or was mentally planning other things (future holiday, hot date, footie match etc) that could blank off such annoyance.

We’ve already established that drivers routinely ignore the GPS ‘fence’ alert due to inaccurate capture - indeed a bus passing the end of Cook Street would be alerted even though they weren’t turning there but using Nelson Street. It depends on many variables, all conspiring should they all come together - the driver is only human, after all.

Since this hasn’t removed the problem, it’s now time to explore more radical solutions, as mentioned further up this thread. The recent bridge strike in Kilmarnock is a case in point, the driver took a DDB through a low bridge that even a single decker could not make it through, so arguably this situation was even worse as the restriction was visible at all times as it was approached.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I cannot be the only person in the world to not being aware of warning signs and alerts because I was either inattentive or was mentally planning other things (future holiday, hot date, footie match etc) that could blank off such annoyance.

We’ve already established that drivers routinely ignore the GPS ‘fence’ alert due to inaccurate capture - indeed a bus passing the end of Cook Street would be alerted even though they weren’t turning there but using Nelson Street. It depends on many variables, all conspiring should they all come together - the driver is only human, after all.

Since this hasn’t removed the problem, it’s now time to explore more radical solutions, as mentioned further up this thread. The recent bridge strike in Kilmarnock is a case in point, the driver took a DDB through a low bridge that even a single decker could not make it through, so arguably this situation was even worse as the restriction was visible at all times as it was approached.

Is it possible that the entry test for being a bus driver might be too low, bearing in mind people who have apparently passed the test evidently make the errors I've shown in bold? (I accept that the first is your view, and you're not a bus driver - but it seems to be a rational explanation)
Perhaps a spatial awareness test - for which train drivers are tested, even though they don't encounter low bridges and don't steer - might be a start?

A low bridge hit often results in a jail sentence for the bus driver, the Glasgow driver (above) seems to have avoided this for some reason.

Passing the height prohibition sign (as in the pictures at Cook St) itself is an offence (some are warning triangles only) .

 

[Towers]

We’ve already established that drivers routinely ignore the GPS ‘fence’ alert due to inaccurate capture - indeed a bus passing the end of Cook Street would be alerted even though they weren’t turning there but using Nelson Street. It depends on many variables, all conspiring should they all come together - the driver is only human, after all.

Since this hasn’t removed the problem, it’s now time to explore more radical solutions, as mentioned further up this thread. The recent bridge strike in Kilmarnock is a case in point, the driver took a DDB through a low bridge that even a single decker could not make it through, so arguably this situation was even worse as the restriction was visible at all times as it was approached.

I wonder whether the answer moving forwards might be to utilise the “sign reading” tech which is now becoming commonplace in new cars - and which I believe is one of the two systems expected to be used for the much dreaded mandatory speed limiters due in coming years - to pick up on and read the bridge height warning signs and either sound an alarm or even apply the vehicle brakes. That would seem an entirely feasible development, and would have the advantage of not being deployed unless you were actually driving at the bridge, rather than just being in the vicinity as has been mentioned in this particular situation. Fitment of such a system could become a legal requirement on all high vehicles going forwards. Whatever the rights, wrongs and expectations of professional drivers and their competence, this remains a significant issue and clearly roadsign signage is insufficient to stop the problem.

 

[Buzby]

I wonder whether the answer moving forwards might be to utilise the “sign reading” tech which is now becoming commonplace in new cars -

I’m not a fan of this - we still don’t have truly self-driving vehicles, although we’ve been told they are ‘imminent’ for the last 15 years of so. The self-driving Stagecoach bus (across the Forth Road Bridge) had TWO non-drivers just-in-case! I recently drove a new car model that so bristled with technology, when I reversed out of a parking space it jammed on the brakes harshly (at 8mph) as a started pigeon flew past the bumper sensors. It might have worked for hedgehogs too, but if we start shifting the responsibility to rely on technology instead, we’ll be in a worse situation.

I have nothing but sympathy for drivers in these situations - we all have ‘bad days’, it’s just that familiarity can be its own worst enemy. (Unlike that Glasgow Bin Lorry driver who actively concealed his possibility of passing out in a diabetic coma). I don’t believe more/better signage would stop these bridge hits outright, but I hope someone reviews why NR should look at modifying the bridge profile to make such hits less likely.

 

[Bill57p9]

I wonder whether the answer moving forwards might be to utilise the “sign reading” tech which is now becoming commonplace in new cars - and which I believe is one of the two systems expected to be used for the much dreaded mandatory speed limiters due in coming years - to pick up on and read the bridge height warning signs and either sound an alarm or even apply the vehicle brakes. That would seem an entirely feasible development, and would have the advantage of not being deployed unless you were actually driving at the bridge, rather than just being in the vicinity as has been mentioned in this particular situation. Fitment of such a system could become a legal requirement on all high vehicles going forwards. Whatever the rights, wrongs and expectations of professional drivers and their competence, this remains a significant issue and clearly roadsign signage is insufficient to stop the problem.

Sign reading tech is good, but not perfect.
Frankly GPS based height warning systems are already available. It they are either not adopted or warnings ignored I am unsure what throwing more technology at the situation will do.

Humans will make mistakes. How to stop these making it into full blown incidents is the $1m question.
Yes, these things are ultimately the driver's accountability but we owe it to professional drivers to give them all the tools and support to minimise the chance of these mistakes not being caught.
I do hope that NR can recover all costs from the bus operators involved. Only in this way will operators be motivated to reduce the likelihood of occurrence.

 

[endecotp]

Re GPS-based warning systems in vehicles and the problem of false alerts:

If the system took into account both the location reported by the GPS and the direction in which the vehicle is facing, could the rate of false alerts be significantly reduced?

For example, in this case a bus oriented north-south has nothing to worry about in the vicinity of the Cook Street bridge (e.g. it’s just going along Eglinton Street). On the other hand, a vehicle oriented east-west at the same location could trigger an alarm.

 

[Buzby]

For example, in this case a bus oriented north-south has nothing to worry about in the vicinity of the Cook Street bridge (e.g. it’s just going along Eglinton Street). On the other hand, a vehicle oriented east-west at the same location could trigger an alarm.

For the systems I have seen (commercial vehicles), this is not possible - a ‘geofence‘ is used (usually) a circle around the obstruction. If the circle is too big, it will sound in the vehicle as it passes north up Eglinton St, make it smaller, so that it won’t affect a bus on Eglinton, but trigger once Cook St is entered. The direction the vehicle travels is not considered - it’s a binary state. The only variable is the height, clearly a DDB is a different height from a SDB, so an alarm for one would not be an alarm for all.

As we’ve seen with the two recent strikes - assuming the alarms did activate, they were ignored.

 

[ajrm]

I wonder whether the answer moving forwards might be to utilise the “sign reading” tech which is now becoming commonplace in new cars - and which I believe is one of the two systems expected to be used for the much dreaded mandatory speed limiters due in coming years - to pick up on and read the bridge height warning signs and either sound an alarm or even apply the vehicle brakes. That would seem an entirely feasible development, and would have the advantage of not being deployed unless you were actually driving at the bridge, rather than just being in the vicinity as has been mentioned in this particular situation. Fitment of such a system could become a legal requirement on all high vehicles going forwards. Whatever the rights, wrongs and expectations of professional drivers and their competence, this remains a significant issue and clearly roadsign signage is insufficient to stop the problem.

Given the reliability of those systems with speed limit signs—my car regularly picks up a 70mph speed limit on the railway in lieu of the 40mph limit on the adjacent road—I think the result would be more bridge strikes, not fewer...

 

[NotATrainspott]

How often do bus drivers go through red lights at junctions or pedestrian crossings?

Adding an otherwise unnecessary pelican crossing might help here, if connected to an overheight vehicle detector. The reason for the pedestrian crossing is simple - it's a thing that drivers are already familiar with and should be looking out for, and it will occasionally be red. A sign or light that only ever triggers when there's an overheight vehicle is one which 1. may be broken when it's needed and 2. may be so unfamiliar that the overheight vehicle driver doesn't process it on time. Even if the pedestrian crossing isn't used very often, it'll probably still be used often enough for drivers to have seen it in action. A stop light that comes on randomly (so it's tested regularly, and drivers are aware of its presence) which doesn't have a pedestrian crossing function would be more confusing to drivers. Drivers know that pedestrians sometimes cross without waiting for the green man, even after pressing the button, so they're not going to be too confused about stopping for a red light for no obvious reason. And it means there's less cost in false positives - you could put the overheight detectors here on the other side of the Salkeld Street junction so that the red light would be triggered even if you're only going under the WCML bridge. So long as you aren't then detected continuing west on Cook Street, it can reset after a few seconds.

Making an overheight vehicle driver slow down and/or stop completely, and then focus their attention at a known point, is most of the problem. You can then have any sort of flashing lights and/or warning signage you want, as the drivers will be stopped and so it'll be safe and possible for them to read them. Have permanent signage explaining the traffic light will remain red if an overheight vehicle is detected. Drivers of non-overheight vehicles aren't that interested in helping overheight drivers strike bridges. So if you've got a car stuck at the red light and an overheight vehicle behind it, the car driver may well end up getting out to remonstrate with them. A physical reset button could be provided so that the car driver can escape but only after physically getting out of their car.

Width restrictions are rarely a bad idea either. But, they need to be as far forward as possible. If they're only just at the bridge itself, then an overheight, overwidth vehicle will still probably hit it. Speed bumps and chicane elements would be generally appropriate too here given this is in an urban area. If you're driving too fast to react to a width or height restriction then you're also driving too fast to react to a pedestrian or cyclist in the road.

 

[Bill57p9]

For the systems I have seen (commercial vehicles), this is not possible - a ‘geofence‘ is used (usually) a circle around the obstruction. If the circle is too big, it will sound in the vehicle as it passes north up Eglinton St, make it smaller, so that it won’t affect a bus on Eglinton, but trigger once Cook St is entered. The direction the vehicle travels is not considered - it’s a binary state. The only variable is the height, clearly a DDB is a different height from a SDB, so an alarm for one would not be an alarm for all.

As we’ve seen with the two recent strikes - assuming the alarms did activate, they were ignored.

The GPS based warning systems may just be a geofence today, however the technology is absolutely there to take into account direction and potentially speed.
The CANBUS will have steering wheel angle sensor data on it, therefore it is entirely possible to work out if a driver is turning. It is all technically possible, it just needs the will to make it happen.

As with any safety warning, false positives have to be minimised, otherwise they lose their meaning.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Suggestions of some sort of traffic light arrangement might be tempered by viewing on YouTube the many videos of collisions with the ' 10' 8" ' (later raised by a foot) railway bridge in the U.S.A. (Durham, North Carolina). When an overheight vehicle approaches, the traffic lights change to red and a sign 'OVERHEIGHT - MUST TURN' is illuminated - there's a turning just before the bridge. A proportion of the drivers that see the lights changing because their vehicle is overheight just accelerate so as to beat the red, and thereby drive even faster into the bridge (which has sacrifice beams).

 

[NotATrainspott]

Suggestions of some sort of traffic light arrangement might be tempered by viewing on YouTube the many videos of collisions with the ' 10' 8" ' (later raised by a foot) railway bridge in the U.S.A. (Durham, North Carolina). When an overheight vehicle approaches, the traffic lights change to red and a sign 'OVERHEIGHT - MUST TURN' is illuminated - there's a turning just before the bridge. A proportion of the drivers that see the lights changing because their vehicle is overheight just accelerate so as to beat the red, and thereby drive even faster into the bridge (which has sacrifice beams).

A lot will depend on exactly where the sensors are and the timings for the lights, as well as the maximum possible speed through the junctions. A recurring problem in the US is that traffic engineers are optimising for overall vehicle speed above pretty much anything else. Adding in chicanes or speed bumps or width restrictions to force drivers to slow down is not something they're happy doing. But, as you point out, it ends up being almost the most important problem in bridge strikes. If the speed limit is a hard enforced 10mph under a bridge then even if you do hit it, you're probably not going to do much damage to your vehicle or the bridge. And, you have the longest possible time to react to warning signage.

Red traffic lights could be used as a way to selectively slow down traffic. If there's no overheight vehicles around then traffic can flow at normal speed permitted by the road layout (including the traffic slowing measures). If the system detects overheight vehicles around it can start throwing in red light sequences to bring down average speeds.

 

[philthetube]

Is it possible that the entry test for being a bus driver might be too low, bearing in mind people who have apparently passed the test evidently make the errors I've shown in bold? (I accept that the first is your view, and you're not a bus driver - but it seems to be a rational explanation)
Perhaps a spatial awareness test - for which train drivers are tested, even though they don't encounter low bridges and don't steer - might be a start?

A low bridge hit often results in a gaol sentence for the bus driver, the Glasgow driver (above) seems to have avoided this for some reason.

Passing the height prohibition sign (as in the pictures at Cook St) itself is an offence (some are warning triangles only) .

I started this thread asking these questions in the buses section.

Should a separate category be reintroduced for double deck driving?

 

[deerokus]

I've noticed First now have some sort of inspection team at the stop immediately before this bridge. They get on, ask the driver a bunch of questions about the route and what he'd do if there was a diversion and then send him on his way.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Surprised this hasn't been posted already; BBC News reported yesterday that a 57 year old man has been charged after a double decker 'bus crashed into railway bridge in Glasgow city centre. Police Scotland said the arrested man had been charged in connection with road traffic offences.

Man, 57, charged after double-decker bus roof torn off in Glasgow bridge crash

Eight people were injured when the First Bus double-decker became wedged under a railway bridge in Glasgow.

www.bbc.co.uk