Network Rail urges drivers to stop hitting low bridge

[The Planner]

Can they not install a big gantry with a dangling rubber bar on it? If you made contact with the bar then a big sign would illuminate on the bridge saying you should stop at once.

There are plenty of early warning systems which if you break some sort of electronic beam then signs come on.

A41 Blackthorn
Berkswell

 

[marko2]

Its time these drivers were charged with careless driving if not dangerous driving seeing how their actions could result in serious damage to a bridge and even derail a train. All bridges I have seen all have well marked signs showing height etc, so what is their problem other than lack of concentration. I watched one foregn driver hit a bridge carrying the east coast mainline, he stopped with most of his roof peeled back, then got back in his cab and drove on as though nothing had happened. Called police don't know whether they caught him.

They do get prosecuted.

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/tesco_lorry_hits_finsbury_park_bridge_and_tips_over_1_2940789

The proceeding bridge-strike to the one in the linked article resulted in a 6 month ban for the driver. Amusingly, the Tesco truck had 'You shop we drop' on the side of it. They eventually got the trailer out by dragging it on its side back under the bridge, righting it and then driving it out through the bus-station.

The most vulnerable bridge-deck (the lowest) has a bridge protection beam, which is towards the middle of the 6 or 7 spans. It's skewed across the road (as are the decks) and tends to flip over anything that hits it.

 

[marko2]

It's not just low bridges that HGVs make a mess of.

This one closed the Forth Bridge for the best part of a day (duing a storm) recently.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-38575843

I think low bridges tend to make much more a mess of the HGV than the other way around.

 

[Dr_Paul]

A lorry or bus driver should know the height of his vehicle, but even then accidents can still happen. This bus was out of service and was on the direct road from Wimbledon towards Kingston that goes under a low bridge by Norbiton station, instead of following the actual, rather less direct route taken by the 131 via New Malden. It's possible that the driver forgot he was driving a double-decker; this road is used by routes with single-deckers. There are several warning signs on the road about the low bridge. I have seen hand-written posters on posts in the station yard at Norbiton asking 'bustitution' drivers not to drive that way to Kingston.

 

[Camden]

Given the cost involved when a bridge is hit, is it beyond the wit of NR to install height guards some distance either side of the ones that are frequently hit? Better that a lightweight barrier is broken and a lorry or bus comes to a halt with minimal or no damage beforehand?

 

[najaB]

Given the cost involved when a bridge is hit, is it beyond the wit of NR to install height guards some distance either side of the ones that are frequently hit? Better that a lightweight barrier is broken and a lorry or bus comes to a halt with minimal or no damage beforehand?

Mandatory pic post every time this topic comes up:

(Sign on approach to bridge which says "If you hit this sign you will hit that bridge").

 

[fredk]

They do get prosecuted.

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/tesco_lorry_hits_finsbury_park_bridge_and_tips_over_1_2940789

The proceeding bridge-strike to the one in the linked article resulted in a 6 month ban for the driver. Amusingly, the Tesco truck had 'You shop we drop' on the side of it. They eventually got the trailer out by dragging it on its side back under the bridge, righting it and then driving it out through the bus-station.

The most vulnerable bridge-deck (the lowest) has a bridge protection beam, which is towards the middle of the 6 or 7 spans. It's skewed across the road (as are the decks) and tends to flip over anything that hits it.

I really cannot understand WHY that driver thought it was ok to go under there? There have been huge dayglo warning signs there for ages, no buses go under there, and the bridges even look very low. Well deserved, and shocking that someone who could drive into that bridge ever worked as a lorry driver.

 

[Cowley]

I think you are thinking of the Oyne accident included in the link below, which also shows the other accidents on Railways Archive from the same cause.

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/ev...opment=all&published=no&acctype=all&submit=Go

That's the one Edwin m, well remembered . That must have been scary.

 

[steverailer]

I'm amazed that lorry drivers actually use satnav units without the extra data, when the major mapping companies have been providing essential data for years.

Obviously it costs more to have a product with that data, but it's amazing a lorry driver would not understand the risk of using a system that will navigate based on the assumption that you're in a car, or perhaps a van at most. In effect, directing you directly at bridges and narrow dirt tracks and through tiny villages.

The difference is around £300. When I was driving full time I only used a car sat nav and a Trucker's map. The sat nav was only used for speed camera's and the last few miles, truckers map to check for low bridges and avoiding routes, and finally I used good old common sense, is the road looked wrong I didn't go down it. Currently at 22 yrs with a license and no bridge hits or close calls.

Media discussion yesterday that HGV drivers should be banned from using car sat navs.
In this day and age amazed that bridge strikes still happen.
NR should press harder for compensation for delays from insurers and any excess from HGV driver or their firm.
Maybe convictions and jailing of those involved in Bath runaway tragedy will get more HGV drivers to stop and think, but not holding out too much hope.

Why should all drivers be made to buy one? I know quite a few who work the way I described above and have never hit anything in many years of driving. So once again the majority suffer for the minority. As for the Bath tragedy, the driver was found not guilty, was down to the owner and serious lack of maintenance, yes part of it was down to his inexperience but the majority was down to the state of the truck that would never be picked up on a drivers daily check

 

[Sean Emmett]

The difference is around £300. When I was driving full time I only used a car sat nav and a Trucker's map. The sat nav was only used for speed camera's and the last few miles, truckers map to check for low bridges and avoiding routes, and finally I used good old common sense, is the road looked wrong I didn't go down it. Currently at 22 yrs with a license and no bridge hits or close calls.



Why should all drivers be made to buy one? I know quite a few who work the way I described above and have never hit anything in many years of driving. So once again the majority suffer for the minority. As for the Bath tragedy, the driver was found not guilty, was down to the owner and serious lack of maintenance, yes part of it was down to his inexperience but the majority was down to the state of the truck that would never be picked up on a drivers daily check

Fair comment. No wish to over regulate; but why are bridge strikes still happening? Perhaps routing something employer should ensure route is appropriate? Re Bath tragedy clearly employer's lack of duty of care. Fed up with reports of HGVs getting stuck in villages around Bristol. Shows a complete lack of understanding of road infrastructure.

 

[jon0844]

there are Truck specific sat nav systems
http://www.satnavcompany.com/tomtom-pro-5250-truck.html

I know. That was my point in the first place.

I've been out in the mapping vehicles and seen just how much data is gathered. It's quite impressive. But the size of the data is huge, so an awful lot is never included in consumer systems.

Even the level of detail on the roads varies a lot. Less points = less data, but can mean slightly wonkier lines on maps. This actually can cause some issues where a bend can appear sharp enough to trigger an announcement to turn left/right.

 

[jon0844]

Why should all drivers be made to buy one? I know quite a few who work the way I described above and have never hit anything in many years of driving.

I don't think anyone needs to buy one, but they should probably buy the right type. Without one, you'd do things the old fashioned way. So a consumer system could actually direct you into danger, which you might expect people to overcome by noticing signs/warnings - but why make it more likely in the first place?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Do the bridges that get struck more often have any kind of impact sensors installed?

 

[D365]

Do the bridges that get struck more often have any kind of impact sensors installed?

What benefit exactly would that bring?

 

[steverailer]

I don't think anyone needs to buy one, but they should probably buy the right type. Without one, you'd do things the old fashioned way. So a consumer system could actually direct you into danger, which you might expect people to overcome by noticing signs/warnings - but why make it more likely in the first place?

Don't get your logic here?

I used to use the car sat nav, google and my truck map to plan my route, very rarely asked anyone directions for the reason you give.

The proposed ban would mean me having to buy a HGV one, when all I use it for its the final mile or so to the destination instead of the old A-Z's, after all its bloody hard to navigate a 44 tonner in central London as it is without trying to find the exact road on the A-Z when there are 6 roads in an inch on the map, much better to see exactly on the sat nav. Add to that most HGV ones do one of 2 things if they think the route is not possible (7.5t limit ect) they either plan no route or revert to car mode.

I trialed a snooper one on my current job (a lot of London track access points are in 7.5t built up areas) and it was no better than my original Tom Tom car one, once the destination is inside a restriction it cannot cope and comes back as not possible. This is where good old fashioned common sense comes in and a quick look on google at the destination usually helps.

 

[Elecman]

What benefit exactly would that bring?

They alert the signalman of an impact long before anybody else rings the railway authorities.

 

[D365]

They alert the signalman of an impact long before anybody else rings the railway authorities.

Surely wouldn't the track circuits be damaged anyway?

 

[AndyPJG]

Surely wouldn't the track circuits be damaged anyway?

Only if:-
a) the track was distorted enough to break a rail;
AND
b) it's not an axle counter TC.

 

[jon0844]

Don't get your logic here?

I used to use the car sat nav, google and my truck map to plan my route, very rarely asked anyone directions for the reason you give.

I've never said anyone was asking for directions. I am sorry but I thought what I'd written was quite clear, but obviously not. Don't really have time to write it all over again.

 

[edwin_m]

Don't get your logic here?

I used to use the car sat nav, google and my truck map to plan my route, very rarely asked anyone directions for the reason you give.

The proposed ban would mean me having to buy a HGV one, when all I use it for its the final mile or so to the destination instead of the old A-Z's, after all its bloody hard to navigate a 44 tonner in central London as it is without trying to find the exact road on the A-Z when there are 6 roads in an inch on the map, much better to see exactly on the sat nav. Add to that most HGV ones do one of 2 things if they think the route is not possible (7.5t limit ect) they either plan no route or revert to car mode.

I trialed a snooper one on my current job (a lot of London track access points are in 7.5t built up areas) and it was no better than my original Tom Tom car one, once the destination is inside a restriction it cannot cope and comes back as not possible. This is where good old fashioned common sense comes in and a quick look on google at the destination usually helps.

Perhaps a better approach would be for the police to check when a bridge strike takes place, when the use of a car satnav might be a contributory factor when considering what charges (if any) to bring against the driver.

In the Bath accident the people convicted were the company owner and mechanic, not the driver (although I believe the driver is normally held responsible for the roadworthiness of the vehicle). If a haulage company chooses to equip its trucks with car satnavs then they would potentially have some liability for a bridge strike as well.

 

[najaB]

Every time I read the thread title, this comes to mind.
[youtube]iHgd9DsCI9w[/youtube]

 

[Deepgreen]

Some bridges, but not enough of them, do have those. They should be built around all vulnerable bridges.

Such barriers would, presumably, be the responsibility of Network Rail but would obviously be cheaper and less disruptive to repair after being hit than the actual bridge would.

Such as West Hill, Epsom, for example.

 

[Deepgreen]

Mandatory pic post every time this topic comes up:

(Sign on approach to bridge which says "If you hit this sign you will hit that bridge").

Not if you turn right into the car park!

 

[Deepgreen]

That bloody thing is always being hit!

As for urging them to stop,hitting it.....this shouldn't even be necessary. It's painted in day glow green, well signed, overweight detection....hitting it would be a wilful act!

I have to say I can't see requests not to hit bridges stopping any hits - the signs are blindingly obvious at vulnerable bridges and hits are surely always because of ignorance, distraction, etc.

Did you mean overheight, rather than weight?

 

[najaB]

The other mandatory post proving that it's not just a UK problem: The 11 foot 8 bridge.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Such as West Hill, Epsom, for example.

Or Hook Road at the other end of the town; the Hook Road one gets struck more often than West Hill. West Hill has sacrificial barriers in place; Hook Road doesn't.