Same bridge struck three times in under a week

[D6130]

Showing my advancing years here, all the sat nav discussion makes me wonder if people no longer :

• pay attention to road signs or their surroundings?
• learn how to read maps?

Which have the potential to cause significant injuries to upper deck bus passengers.

No more so than the girders or arch of the bridge, I would think.

 

[sjoh]

Well considering how most people in Erdington drive its not really surprising.

Glad to have found out where all the lorry drivers live.

 

[PG]

No more so than the girders or arch of the bridge, I would think.

Maybe I've misinterpreted the previous post? In order for chains to attract the attention of the driver they would have to be somewhat lower than the height of the bridge.

 

[Retorus]

How hard is it for drivers to pay attention to warnings? How do people keep getting it so wrong?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Maybe I've misinterpreted the previous post? In order for chains to attract the attention of the driver they would have to be somewhat lower than the height of the bridge.

No I think the idea is that the vertical chains are at a small distance before the bridge but same height as the bridge opening. The idea is to alarm the road vehicle driver and slow-down / stop the vehicle before the actual bridge is reached. Possibly a little lower than the bridge to allow for error. Also a series of chains would probably do less harm than the bridge to bus passengers on the upper deck anyway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jan 2025 ==

How hard is it for drivers to pay attention to warnings? How do people keep getting it so wrong?

People do get it wrong and we have to accept that these errors get made and find ways of reducing the risk.

 

[dcbwhaley]

so how about making the use of a suitable professional satnav absolutely mandatory? I can't understand why it is not - and coming from a railway perspective, I don't see why they shouldn't interface with the truck engine as well and cut it out if a conflict is imminent.

It is not just bridge strikes. Car sat navs will take HGVs up narrow roads with sharp corners that they cannot negotiate. Happens frewuently around here

 

[Peter Sarf]

so how about making the use of a suitable professional satnav absolutely mandatory? I can't understand why it is not - and coming from a railway perspective, I don't see why they shouldn't interface with the truck engine as well and cut it out if a conflict is imminent.

I suppose the snag is that the use of SatNavs is not mandatory. So it is hard to then dictate what type of SatNav a motorist uses.

 

[Haywain]

Which have the potential to cause significant injuries to upper deck bus passengers.

In much the same way as a low bridge?

 

[sor]

No end of signage seems to help. The infamous Goss Moor bridge over the former A30 was constantly hit by lorries despite the ever increasing number of warning signs. Ultimately the "solution" was to build the new A30 around it.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Agreed. The fact that these incidents keep happening suggest there are issues that need to be looked into that are deeper than ‘only an idiot would do it’. If the railway industry persisted with this attitude we wouldn’t have the fairly good safety record that we do today as any incident involving human factors would have just lazily been blamed on the member of staff involved, rather than seriously looking into the root causes and addressing them.

It's one of many symptoms of road transport not having the kind of safety culture that other modes of transport - including rail - have developed. As, for that matter, has the construction industry.

Road accident investigation largely operates on the model of 'find out what mistake the driver made', doesn't take much interest in systematic issues, and doesn't share its findings freely.

A lot of the modern discussion around road accidents - excepting the press, who believe all vehicles are self-driving - actually promotes the idea that a driver is always at fault. This actively discourages drivers from being forthright about accidents and near-misses, since they might incriminate themselves in an investigation performed by the police!

I'm absolutely convinced that a Highway Accident Investigation Branch is needed, with similar remit to the AAIB, MAIB and RAIB, if a meaningful change to road safety is to be achieved.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It's one of many symptoms of road transport not having the kind of safety culture that other modes of transport - including rail - have developed. As, for that matter, has the construction industry.

Road accident investigation largely operates on the model of 'find out what mistake the driver made', doesn't take much interest in systematic issues, and doesn't share its findings freely.

A lot of the modern discussion around road accidents - excepting the press, who believe all vehicles are self-driving - actually promotes the idea that a driver is always at fault. This actively discourages drivers from being forthright about accidents and near-misses, since they might incriminate themselves in an investigation performed by the police!

I'm absolutely convinced that a Highway Accident Investigation Branch is needed, with similar remit to the AAIB, MAIB and RAIB, if a meaningful change to road safety is to be achieved.

I agree. Most drivers do not deliberately have accidents after all.

 

[Lloyds siding]

If they can do flashy signs saying what your speed is, then I'm sure they can do flashy signs to remind you of a low bridge or even what your height is.

 

[43066]

It is the drivers responsibility to check the height of there truck. There is no excuse for it.

Not an excuse, but an explanation. Of course people need to be responsible and diligent, but it’s simply inevitable that mistakes will happen. Especially when people are stressed, fatigued etc. I doubt any drivers are casual about driving into a low bridge - if you rip the top deck off a bus, or the roof off the lorry you’re driving, you’re going to face potential job loss and prosecution as it is.

Just punishing people is less effective at preventing these things than looking at the causes and trying to eliminate them (eg not rostering people to drive various different height vehicles in a short time any more than necessary).

It’s not going to happen for the simple reason that it wouldn’t work. Nobody sets out to crash into a bridge, and many drivers of commercial behicles that do so lose their jobs. There is no driver out there that‘s going to take even greater care than they already do just because the consequence is higher than it already is

Exactly this.

 

[Indigo Soup]

I agree. Most drivers do not deliberately have accidents after all.

In fact, the only requirement for something to be an accident is that it doesn't happen deliberately!

 

[Bald Rick]

If they can do flashy signs saying what your speed is, then I'm sure they can do flashy signs to remind you of a low bridge or even what your height is.

As I said upthread, those signs were installed at this exact location many years ago. I’m told it didn’t stop incidents.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

This comes up frequently. There’s two issues with that:

1) liability for maintenance of said gantry
2) overall safety - if a collision knocks it over; yes the railway will probably be protected, but damage to other vehicles and people; is much more likely than if a vehicle hits a bridge (which generally is a low consequence incident)

The gantry itself would be considered to be an obstruction to the highway and the Highway Authority would object if any bridge owner proposed such a structure.

A bridge owner can, with the agreement of the Highway Authority, install collision protection beams to protect existing or replacement flat soffit structures, but these can only project 10-20mm below the soffit of the structure itself and they must be designed to absorb the loads imposed from the expected strike from a road vehicle.

 

[Lloyds siding]

As I said upthread, those signs were installed at this exact location many years ago. I’m told it didn’t stop incidents.

You certainly did (along with Magdalen Road)...it should guarantee a 'driving without due care and attention' conviction.
I did nearly make this mistake a few years ago. The main road was congested , so took the side road that went under the railway...but stopped before I reached the bridge when I remembered that I was driving a van rather than my car...

 

[Ediswan]

I'm absolutely convinced that a Highway Accident Investigation Branch is needed, with similar remit to the AAIB, MAIB and RAIB, if a meaningful change to road safety is to be achieved.

Such was proposed in 2022, but not yet put into practice:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_Safety_Investigation_Branch

The Road Safety Investigation Branch (RSIB) is a proposed road safety investigation organisation announced by the government of the United Kingdom in June 2022. The RSIB will provide independent safety recommendations based on thematic analysis of road accidents, and will provide insights into evolution of road safety policy in response to new technologies such as self-driving vehicles, e-scooters and electric vehicles.

The branch shall investigate thematics in the causes of crashes and also specific incidents to learn safety lessons. Independent safety recommendations shall be provided to government and police forces.

 

[RGM654]

If they can do flashy signs saying what your speed is, then I'm sure they can do flashy signs to remind you of a low bridge or even what your height is.

In my experience nearly all drivers either obey the speed limit, so the signs are irrelevant, or they ignore the speed limit and they ignore the signs.

 

[Sealink]

What kind of penalties are imposed on the truck companies who bash bridges?
EDIT: I found this from Network Rail (Dated 2020)

Historically Network Rail struggled to claim Back Schedule 8 payments from Insurers.
• Following Court cases: Network Rail v Conarken and Farrell Transport (2010), Court of Appeal (2011) and Network Rail v Handy & Others (2015). Network Rail is now in a stronger position.
• Network Rail now seeks to claim 100% of all costs including Schedule 8.
• Hauliers are required to declare accident history – typically the last 5 years.
• No doubt this will affect premiums…..

So how much does a bridge strike cost?
• Depends on location and extent of any damage.
• Routes into / around London cost most...
Schedule 8 (Compensation) = £690,599.44
Repairs. = £ 13,439.99
Bridge Examiner call out. = £ 193.19
Total Monies recovered by Network Rail. = £ 704,231.63


Impact on the Driver / Operator
• 29th March 2016 - Bridge 2/79 near Byfleet in Surrey.
• Delayed Trains for 41 minutes. At a cost of £3,069.
• Driver received 5pts & £454 fine for Careless Driving

 

[43066]

What kind of penalties are imposed on the truck companies who bash bridges?

No penalty as such, but they will have insurance policies in place to cover this kind of thing, so inevitably premiums will rise to reflect claims. Claims of this type will be substantial.

 

[Sealink]

Network Rail press release:

Lorry drivers are being urged to know the height of their vehicle after a Birmingham bridge was hit three times in less than a week.

The railway bridge on Summer Lane, Erdington, was hit just before 10am today (7 January). After being inspected and given the green light to safely reopen, it was then bashed for a second time at 12.10pm, reopening again at 1.45pm.

Drivers urged to ‘wise up, size up’ after bridge bashed twice in one day

Lorry drivers are being urged to know the height of their vehicle after a Birmingham bridge was hit three times in less than a week.

www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jan 2025 ==

Can someone confirm if I have posted the link above correctly? I often get a message that it isn't formatted correctly..

 

[43066]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jan 2025 ==

Can someone confirm if I have posted the link above correctly? I often get a message that it isn't formatted correctly..

I think you’re supposed to post the link to the source, and quote from it, ie put it into a quotation box, so that people can clearly see what is your own opinion/comment and what you’ve taken from elsewhere.

I’m sure @yorkie will advise.

 

[Oxfordblues]

American Youtube channel 11foot8 has some interesting compilations of bridge-strikes at one particular location with plenty of warning signs but precious little compliance:

 

[Dr Hoo]

Noting that many people are looking forward to the abolition of the Schedule 8 performance regimes (at least for GBR’s own trains on its own infrastructure) presumably the £690,599.44 ‘cost’ of a bridge strike on a busy London route won’t exist in the same way. How will GBR be able to claim beyond the £13,633.18 in direct repair and call-out costs?
If delay attribution is also abolished, as called for or expected by some, presumably nobody will ever know how much disruption was down to the bridge strike anyway.

 

[Falcon1200]

If delay attribution is also abolished, as called for or expected by some, presumably nobody will ever know how much disruption was down to the bridge strike anyway.

Delay attribution will not be abolished; Long before privatisation/separation of functions were a gleam in a politician's eye delays were investigated and the cause established. The railway has to (and always did have to) know what is going wrong so that it can, in theory at least, be rectified!

 

[matchmaker]

As I said upthread, those signs were installed at this exact location many years ago. I’m told it didn’t stop incidents.

Whwn a bridge near me was replaced about 10 years ago these signs were put in. Not one bridge strike since then. Although it is a bit worrying at first when you see that double deck buses activate it...it is on several busy bus routes.

 

[AndrewE]

Whwn a bridge near me was replaced about 10 years ago these signs were put in. Not one bridge strike since then. Although it is a bit worrying at first when you see that double deck buses activate it...it is on several busy bus routes.

If I didn't know that route (as a passenger on the top deck) and saw that coming towards me I would probably crap myself, throw myself on the floor or down the stairs if I could get to them, or stamp like hell on the floor over the driver's head!
What are they playing at?

 

[Titfield]

but nothing to absolutely require the "operator" to ensure the driver has a suitable professional satnav issued by the company? Surely #4 has been superceded by technology?

My understanding is that lots of drivers are owner-occupiers driving tractor units in the livery of the firms they are contracted to and hence aren't prepared to (can't?) pay for the correct Satnav out of their own pockets.

All a bit drastic.
Fifty mile radius of where/what ?.
HGVs roam the whole country from their base.

I get the impression that the penalties/costs for hitting a bridge are already stiff enough.

So what is the problem that lets this still happen ?.
Is is not necessarily sloppy driving so punishment is a rather pointless exercise.
If punishment is going to do anything then it is going to reduce the number of HGV drivers of which there is already a shortage.

I am not pro HGV and wish we still had the lower axle weight but I am convinced preventing bridge bashes is not straightforward. As @Bald Rick says - the penalties are already there. We need to look at how this kind of mistake comes about.

I feel it is likely that humans do not generally consider headroom as I have alluded to before. If that is a deeply ingrained feature of the human brain then we have to accept that weakness and find ways round it.
AI in the cab ? - maybe one day.
Reduce the number of low bridges ? - raise where practicable the worst victims.

BUT for drivers who can be proven to be trying it on by slowing on approach and then squeezing through even if no damage then perhaps we should be using a stick there.

To answer some of the points raised in response to my post;

Maps may have been superseded by technology but having a visible reminder at the operating centre sign on point is a very low cost measure.

A 50 mile radius of the operating centre. Data shows that in general most accidents happen within a very small radius of home / operating centre.

If drivers cant afford a professional sat nav then I would have concerns that they can afford to maintain their vehicles properly.

Network Rail has looked at raising the height of some bridges but some locations would require extremely large works because of the topography of the area.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Many overbridges with a level deck have the height in a red circle (arched bridges seem to usually have the max. height at the centre in a triangle). Driving under a prohibition (red circle) sign displaying a lower height than that of your vehicle would seem to be an absolute offence, i.e., no defence - like exceeding a speed limit. But I'm not sure whether the offence is just 'careless driving' though.

Although I can't find a report to link, I am fairly certain that a bus driver who drove a loaded double-deck bus through a low bridge in Bedford received a jail sentence, although in this case there were injuries if not worse.

Comments below YouTube videos of lorries hitting low bridges (in this country) imply that DVSA might act with regard to the licence of the driver - suspension or revocation - but I accept that these remarks are even less reliable than other web information sources.