Bus Hits Low bridge

[Mr Manager]

Some Questions going to asked.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33584494

Seven people were injured when a bus crashed into a railway bridge in south-east London.
The roof of the double decker was ripped off in the crash in South Norwood at about 21:15 BST on Saturday.
London Ambulance Service treated seven people at the scene on Portland Road and took four to hospital, a spokesman said.
Police said the bridge was not part of the normal route for the bus - the number 197 to Peckham.
The ambulance service said three of the passengers taken to hospital had sustained minor injuries. The fourth - a woman - was suffering with neck pain.
The road was closed and traffic diversions are in place.

 

[BestWestern]

Sky News mentioned that adjacent to the bridge was a sign specifically stating that it was unsuitable for double deck vehicles (which I thought sounded odd, unless it's a de-roofing hotspot).

 

[transmanche]

Sky News mentioned that adjacent to the bridge was a sign specifically stating that it was unsuitable for double deck vehicles (which I thought sounded odd, unless it's a de-roofing hotspot).

There's a normal height restriction sign where you'd expect one, but there's also a TfL Buses sign at the junction immediately next to the bridge, plus another attached to the bridge itself. Buses on route 197 should turn right at that junction - it seems the driver just went straight on.

(You can see the junction if you click the link and scroll right.)

 

[Surreyman]

Sky News mentioned that adjacent to the bridge was a sign specifically stating that it was unsuitable for double deck vehicles (which I thought sounded odd, unless it's a de-roofing hotspot).

This bridge has claimed many double deck roofs over the years, so yes it is a 'De-Roofing Hot Spot"
The Driver will probably lose his job.

 

[KendalKing]

This bridge has claimed many double deck roofs over the years, so yes it is a 'De-Roofing Hot Spot"
The Driver will probably lose his job.

If this is a "De-roofing Hot Spot", then the best thing that TfL can do is re-route the service away from this bridge or convert the route to single deck operation.

 

[455driver]

As a former bus driver I think that any driver who takes a double decker under a 12ft3in bridge should be sacked, there really is no excuse!

 

[Robertj21a]

If this is a "De-roofing Hot Spot", then the best thing that TfL can do is re-route the service away from this bridge or convert the route to single deck operation.

The bus was already off route.

 

[transmanche]

The bus was already off route.

Only by a few feet!

Buses on route 197 should turn right onto Manor Road. This one didn't.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'd have thought such a hotspot (and in such a densely populated area) would be a candidate for those infra-red detection systems which cause a large sign to illuminate as a high vehicle approaches, warning vehicles to divert. There's a long-established one at Gledholt in Huddersfield which prevents buses hitting a low bridge carrying the Transpennine line over a main road. There's also one on the A636 approaching Wakefield from junction 39 of the M1, despite the bridge being of sufficient height that most double deckers can fit beneath.

 

[Robertj21a]

Only by a few feet!

Buses on route 197 should turn right onto Manor Road. This one didn't.

Quite - so it may also be a route learning issue with a new driver rather than just him/her failing to notice a rather obvious low bridge.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Last time i rode on a double decker bus, I'm fairly sure there was a sign in the cab for the driver stating how big the bus is

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I'd have thought such a hotspot (and in such a densely populated area) would be a candidate for those infra-red detection systems which cause a large sign to illuminate as a high vehicle approaches, warning vehicles to divert.

The correct turn seems to be too close for that as every double decker approaching it would cause the sign to illuminate so people would very quickly get immune to it and not notice it.

A pre-bridge sacrificial beam might be better for protecting this bridge.

We have two bridges in Epsom that are hot spots and get struck - usually by lorries - 4, 5, 6 times a year each. One is at West Hill just south of the railway station; the other is at the B284 Hook Road. The former was last struck on 14th July; the latter was last struck on 20th July ( yesterday! ).

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Last time i rode on a double decker bus, I'm fairly sure there was a sign in the cab for the driver stating how big the bus is

There have been height markers inside cabs for as long as I can remember even though I don't think it's a statutory requirement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The correct turn seems to be too close for that as every double decker approaching it would cause the sign to illuminate so people would very quickly get immune to it and not notice it.

A pre-bridge sacrificial beam might be better for protecting this bridge.

We have two bridges in Epsom that are hot spots and get struck - usually by lorries - 4, 5, 6 times a year each. One is at West Hill just south of the railway station; the other is at the B284 Hook Road. The former was last struck on 14th July; the latter was last struck on 20th July ( yesterday! ).

Very sound idea. Alternatively, near Worksop (on the A57?) there are archway structures located with hanging chains (indicating the oncoming restriction) located before the bridge that don't damage the vehicles but create sufficient noise to warn any overheight vehicle

 

[ECML180]

Alternatively, near Worksop (on the A57?) there are archway structures located with hanging chains (indicating the oncoming restriction) located before the bridge that don't damage the vehicles but create sufficient noise to warn any overheight vehicle

I thought it was on the A57 too and struggled to find it on google maps! It's actually on the A619 as it comes across towards the A60 and A57, if you usually come to Worksop from the M1 then you could well use either road so it made me confused too. Example of the chains here for those who aren't familiar: https://goo.gl/maps/8oujp

There is also a similar set up near Retford: https://goo.gl/maps/Di4c6

 

[Antman]

Quite - so it may also be a route learning issue with a new driver rather than just him/her failing to notice a rather obvious low bridge.

The driver is responsible regardless of any route learning issues.

I know the area well and you couldn't get a more obvious low bridge with an abundance of signage. There is also an I-bus warning on TfL buses when approaching low bridges.

Only the driver can explain how and why he/she didn't turn right into Manor Road.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Is there any genuine bus route that goes under that bridge? If there isn't could the council just put no buses signs by the bridge, with a busses sign and an arrow point to the road the bus drivers should take?

 

[transmanche]

Is there any genuine bus route that goes under that bridge?

Yes, routes 130 & 410 (which are operated by single-deck vehicles).

If there isn't could the council just put no buses signs by the bridge, with a busses sign and an arrow point to the road the bus drivers should take?

If the driver has already missed an advance height restriction sign, the height restriction sign on the bridge itself, massive yellow/black hatch warning markers on the bridge and not one but two TfL warning signs saying 'Warning Low Bridge: Not suitable for double-deck vehicles" - do you think an extra sign would make any difference?

 

[Antman]

The driver is responsible regardless of any route learning issues.

I know the area well and you couldn't get a more obvious low bridge with an abundance of signage. There is also an I-bus warning on TfL buses when approaching low bridges.

Only the driver can explain how and why he/she didn't turn right into Manor Road.

Is there any genuine bus route that goes under that bridge? If there isn't could the council just put no buses signs by the bridge, with a busses sign and an arrow point to the road the bus drivers should take?

The single deck 130 goes under the bridge.

There is ample signage there already.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, route 410.

If the driver has already missed an advance height restriction sign, the height restriction sign on the bridge itself, massive yellow/black hatch warning markers on the bridge and not one but two TfL warning signs saying 'Warning Low Bridge: Not suitable for double-deck vehicles" - do you think an extra sign would make any difference?

The 410 no longer goes under that bridge, it only did so whilst the bridge in Tennison Road was being rebuilt

 

[transmanche]

The 410 no longer goes under that bridge, it only did so whilst the bridge in Tennison Road was being rebuilt

Strange. The TfL website still shows it as going that way.

 

[Deerfold]

If working correctly the iBus system on the bus would also have been warning the driver that they were approaching a low bridge.

 

[daikilo]

Last time i rode on a double decker bus, I'm fairly sure there was a sign in the cab for the driver stating how big the bus is

Yes, most likely there is.

This reminds me of the tree we occasionally whacked and dented the upper shell of our LD/FS/FLF on my way home. Made one hell of a racket as it worked down the bus. Been there for decades.

Never do a shortcut, or rather, check out the clearances first.

 

[deltic1989]

Last time i rode on a double decker bus, I'm fairly sure there was a sign in the cab for the driver stating how big the bus is

There have been height markers inside cabs for as long as I can remember even though I don't think it's a statutory requirement.

If the vehicle is over 3m overall height, then by law a sign must be provided within the sight of the driver stating the overall height of the vehicle.
That I do remember, however I can't remember if there are any rules on the unit of measurement to be used. I have seen some that use just imperial, and others that use imperial and metric.
It's the driver that commits the offence, if s/he drives the vehicle on the public road with this sign either missing, or damaged/defaced.

It's also the driver that commits an offence if s/he contravenes a clearly displayed road sign and stuffs their vehicle into a bridge.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

If the vehicle is over 3m overall height, then by law a sign must be provided within the sight of the driver stating the overall height of the vehicle.
That I do remember, however I can't remember if there are any rules on the unit of measurement to be used. I have seen some that use just imperial, and others that use imperial and metric.
It's the driver that commits the offence, if s/he drives the vehicle on the public road with this sign either missing, or damaged/defaced.

It's also the driver that commits an offence if s/he contravenes a clearly displayed road sign and stuffs their vehicle into a bridge.

Must've forgotten that - it is 17 years since I did my CPCs in my defence