Bridge bashing

[Fat Controller]

So is the height of lorries marked when it is empty or full?

Is there a system for measuring the maximum height on the spot after loading/unloading?

In the cabs I've seen, there have been both metric and Imperial markings for laden and unladen, though modern suspensions adjust for the load.

There are systems using radar or lasers that can detect out-of-gauge vehicles; these could be used in conjunction with traffic lights or illuminated signage for diversionary routes. We use one such system that is sensitive enough to detect radio/CB antennae to avoid problems with the catenary during loading. 

[melmerby]

I watched some nerd in a lorry gingerly inch through this bridge last week causing somewhat of a hold up whilst doing so. It only just made it with just the thickness of paint to go.

(It's under the Lickey Incline)

 

https://goo.gl/maps/t1w4bEAjybo

 

It's not as if there is no warning:

https://goo.gl/maps/fn6EgCbZ7Dz

(The lights on the sign flash continuously)

 

If you want a really low bridge try this one:

 

https://goo.gl/maps/oT1fy1oCBmx

 

Even the Google camera car couldn't get under it!

There used to be a level crossing right next to it but that was closed some years ago and the new ticket office (visible to the left) is built on the site.

 

Keith

Edited December 14, 2017 by melmerby

[chriswright03]

I can't imagine more than 10% of the driving public would know the legal implications of a sign being circular rather than triangular.  As somebody suggested earlier, if they ignore an indication of safe height regardless of shape and drive into a bridge, that must be enough evidence for some sort of driving offence. 

Or that many have even seen a Highway Code for years let alone read one.  So much has changed since most of us started driving.  In any event if you drive past a warning for a low bridge without knowing if your truck will go under it or not you probably not the sort of person who cares very much what shape road signs are.

[JJGraphics]

What's the clearance to the overhead wires, though?

 

 

A good bit more than under the bridge!

[lmsforever]

The bridge on the A41 going from Bicester to Aylesbury has had to have warning lights ,detetectors etc for a long time now and it seems to be working also there are road signs well away from it warning of height restrictions .But I have seen lorries having to stop and turn are people total idiots?

[Reorte]

I suppose the argument is that it's just telling you what the height is.

 

You shouldn't actually need a sign prohibiting you from trying to fit under it if your vehicle is too high - that's down to the laws of Physics.

And as anyone who has hit a bridge has found out, they may get away with ignoring the laws of the land but no lawyer will help you against the laws of physics.

[Reorte]

In the cabs I've seen, there have been both metric and Imperial markings for laden and unladen, though modern suspensions adjust for the load.

There are systems using radar or lasers that can detect out-of-gauge vehicles; these could be used in conjunction with traffic lights or illuminated signage for diversionary routes. We use one such system that is sensitive enough to detect radio/CB antennae to avoid problems with the catenary during loading. 

Even if there isn't a convenient way of accurately measuring it the argument "I didn't know but assumed it would be fine" isn't going to cut it I hope. The only time a driver shouldn't be held fully responsible would be if the bridge signage was wrong.

[F-UnitMad]

Why is there this underlying view that drivers "get away with" this sort of thing? Any serious incident that is the driver's fault has been a sackable offence at the companies I've worked at, & their name will be noted so they aren't allowed back as an Agency driver either. A bridge strike does carry a charge of driving without due care & attention, or even dangerous driving if other people are involved.

Of course, the stereotype view of HGV drivers as "total idiots" etc does nothing for the image of the job; nor does the pay on offer reflect the real responsibilities of it - "you just sit there & steer" is a common view. So often it isn't a job people want to do or care much about.

No wonder there is a shortage of around 40,000 - 60,000 drivers in the UK, & the gap is being plugged by drivers from Eastern Europe.

If you've ever watched Russian dash-cam videos on You Tube, then Be Afraid.

 

Be VERY Afraid.

[duncan]

Even if there isn't a convenient way of accurately measuring it the argument "I didn't know but assumed it would be fine" isn't going to cut it I hope. The only time a driver shouldn't be held fully responsible would be if the bridge signage was wrong.

 

 

or the bridge moved  -  well trees frequently jump out in front of drivers who hit them   

[chriswright03]

Why is there this underlying view that drivers "get away with" this sort of thing?

 

 

Because is is lazy stereotyping. 

 

It looks like the Company are on their last chance anyway so it is easy to make the assumption that the Company are cowboys and give their drivers no training at all.  Having said that it does not mean every driver that makes a mistake like this works for a Company who don't give a monkeys. 

 

Many many moons ago (in the 70's) as a serving Traffic Police Officer I was constantly stopping HGV drivers as it was just part of my job.  Yes there were cowboys then as well but by the same token there were far more professional drivers who did what they were paid for without coming to our attention.  As a result of talking to many drivers I was aware of how much money they were earning in comparison to me and they were on far more.  I seriously considered leaving the job at the time and becoming a driver.

 

In those days there was neither the traffic there is now nor the problems drivers face these days.  Companies barely make a profit and a driver these days will earn far less in real terms and have to work far more for it.  Hence many of their jobs are taken by Eastern Europeans.  Some companies will cut corners to make ends meet let alone make a profit but that by no means is an indicator that 'all' companies do this or that all HGV drivers are poor/dangerous drivers.

 

Think on next time you see a HGV driver reversing into a space that many people would struggle to get the family car in.  Think on when you go to the shop to buy anything or order it on line that without the lorry driver that item would not be there for you.  

 

On this occasion a driver has clearly driven past a sign saying it was a low bridge and even if it wasn't obvious at the time it will be now that the space was not big enough.  His training should have told him that but then common sense should have as well.  None of us know how much of either of those he had and his lack of ability should not just be transferred to anyone else just because some prefer to generalise rather than think about a subject properly.

[newbryford]

I can't imagine more than 10% of the driving public would know the legal implications of a sign being circular rather than triangular.  As somebody suggested earlier, if they ignore an indication of safe height regardless of shape and drive into a bridge, that must be enough evidence for some sort of driving offence. 

 

It's one of the first questions in any self respecting book concerning the Highway code or current theory test for new drivers. In 13 years of asking that question to new drivers, it was far less than 10% that didn't know what a triangular sign was for.

 

O/T - dropping into driving standards territory. Far more "experienced drivers" would fail a current day theory test. I once carried out a test on thirty 50-80 year olds. Only 1 got the required percentage pass and that was only because he had just taken his minibus MIDAS test and been studying the Highway Code

 

So is the height of lorries marked when it is empty or full?

Is there a system for measuring the maximum height on the spot after loading/unloading?

 

Car transporters have an extendable measure that they use when delivering cars. I've seen a load remeasured just after a truck had dropped off new cars at a local dealership.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Coryton]

It's one of the first questions in any self respecting book concerning the Highway code or current theory test for new drivers. In 13 years of asking that question to new drivers, it was far less than 10% that didn't know what a triangular sign was for.

 

O/T - dropping into driving standards territory. Far more "experienced drivers" would fail a current day theory test. I once carried out a test on thirty 50-80 year olds. Only 1 got the required percentage pass and that was only because he had just taken his minibus MIDAS test and been studying the Highway Code

 

 

Well, as you say above many people who passed their test years ago would fail the theory test now. So just because new drivers - now - have to learn these things to pass doesn't mean that more experienced ones ever knew, or have remembered.

 

But the original comment referred to the "legal implications" of round vs triangular signs, which isn't quite the same as knowing what they indicate.

[highpeakman]

Why is there this underlying view that drivers "get away with" this sort of thing? Any serious incident that is the driver's fault has been a sackable offence at the companies I've worked at, & their name will be noted so they aren't allowed back as an Agency driver either. A bridge strike does carry a charge of driving without due care & attention, or even dangerous driving if other people are involved.

Of course, the stereotype view of HGV drivers as "total idiots" etc does nothing for the image of the job; nor does the pay on offer reflect the real responsibilities of it - "you just sit there & steer" is a common view. So often it isn't a job people want to do or care much about.

No wonder there is a shortage of around 40,000 - 60,000 drivers in the UK, & the gap is being plugged by drivers from Eastern Europe.

If you've ever watched Russian dash-cam videos on You Tube, then Be Afraid.

 

Be VERY Afraid.

 

 

In spite of being quite angry at the results of the Gainsborough bridge strike this week, because of the trouble it caused locally, and thinking that in such cases the driver is definately an idiot I may not entirely agree with the whole point. Also, after a working career of covering thousands of miles around the UK (in a car, not a truck), I do think that too many are cowboys but I can't agree that most HGV drivers are idiots. Many are highly professional, follow the rules and know their business, perhaps not enough. 

 

One major problem contributing to the shortage of UK drivers is the cost of training. I looked at putting my son through a course but the cost of the course, plus the cost of travelling/local accomodation to where it was held plus the time committment needed to do the course (several days - a problem if you are working already and don't want to give up that job until you pass). Those things combined made it near impossible and we abandoned the idea.

[Edwin_m]

It's one of the first questions in any self respecting book concerning the Highway code or current theory test for new drivers. In 13 years of asking that question to new drivers, it was far less than 10% that didn't know what a triangular sign was for.

I agree most would know that a triangular sign is a warning and a circular sign is a prohibition, but how many would understand the difference between the two when they are both showing a height on a bridge? And if they did would it make any difference to how they responded to it? 

 

Another one is the round blue sign with a picture of a tram, which is supposed to be used to indicate a tram only route.  The number of cars heading off down the tramway reduced when this was replaced with the red and white no entry sign, with a supplementary "Except Trams" plate, after DfT finally agreed to this. 

Edited December 14, 2017 by Edwin_m

[Reorte]

Why is there this underlying view that drivers "get away with" this sort of thing?

Whether they get away with it or not is moot, it clearly happens a lot. Now of course no-one is perfect but bridge strikes are hardly an uncommon occurence. There are an awful lot of lorries on the roads so it doesn't take a very high proportion of lorry drivers to be of a poor standard to get this result, and I'm sure most people realise that - and IMO that's even more reason to look at those ones in such a poor light, causing problems out of proportion to their number. Particularly when it starts resulting in providing lots of measures to deal with them, some of which may affect the much larger number of good drivers.

[chriswright03]

One of the problems may well be that bridges are always a little bit higher than they actually say and over time people realise this and push their luck.

 

I recall some years ago driving a coach load of Ladies on a shopping trip to York.  I was booked in to park at the NRM and my Boss assured me that the coach complete with A/C pod would fit under the bridge down past the museum. He had done the trip several times.   I saw the height of the bridge on the sign knew the height of the coach but even then shut one eye and blocked my ears as I went under there.

[jim.snowdon]

And having looked up both of the bridges referenced in post #52, the signs on both of them are in feet and inches. How much does that mean to most drivers these days, especially those from mainland Europe? It doesn't help either when vehicles have height data given in metres.

 

If anyone is out of step, it the powers that be at the DfT who control the regulations concerning highway signage. These are highly prescriptive and although the position may now have changed with respect to bridge height signage, any unauthorised deviation from the regulations, such as using metric units, would render the sign not legal and unenforceable.

 

The same issue affected the the substitution of the blue trams only sign by the red "No Entry except trams" version. When I first fitted some of these on Croydon Tramlink, we had to leave the blue sign in place in order to ensure that any road vehicle driver transgressing could be prosecuted. I'm pleased to see from Edwim M's post that the DfT have finally seen the light.

 

Jim

[Reorte]

And having looked up both of the bridges referenced in post #52, the signs on both of them are in feet and inches. How much does that mean to most drivers these days, especially those from mainland Europe? It doesn't help either when vehicles have height data given in metres.

Dual units is getting ever more common on signage. That said conversion between the two isn't difficult, I'd expect converting your vehicle's height to feet and inches when coming from Europe and writing down the result should be as routine as remembering to drive on the left. You don't need to have a feel of the numbers, just know number for your vehicle has to be less than the number on the sign.

[royaloak]

Sat Nav is often to blame for bridge bashes.

 

There is a low-ish bridge near us and the instances of striking or lorries turning round has gone up by a factor of about 10 in the last 4-5 years as satnavs have become more common.

Drivers of large vehicles have given up looking for warning signs and blindly follow "Turn left in 100 yards......"

 

One day it was hit by a skip wagon that had passed safely under it earlier in the day. He hadn't allowed for being empty on the way back and slightly lower on the other side of the road.........

 

Cheers,

Mick

Is that the fault of the satnav or the fault of the driver?

 

If the satnav said 'drive off the cliff' do you think they would?

[Coryton]

Is that the fault of the satnav or the fault of the driver?

 

If the satnav said 'drive off the cliff' do you think they would?

 

Legally it's certainly the driver's fault.

 

Morally...I'd say so too.

 

But in terms of what you might to do to reduce bridge strikes, it would probably be easier to have bridge heights on satnav maps and the vehicle height entered in to the satnav than to get people to pay more attention to where they're driving.

[TheSignalEngineer]

Is that the fault of the satnav or the fault of the driver?

 

If the satnav said 'drive off the cliff' do you think they would?

If the idiots who turn up moorland tracks round here is anything to go by the answer is 'Yes'

[Reorte]

But in terms of what you might to do to reduce bridge strikes, it would probably be easier to have bridge heights on satnav maps and the vehicle height entered in to the satnav than to get people to pay more attention to where they're driving.

I think (but this is "heard from a bloke in the pub" level knowledge, so please correct if wrong) such satnavs are available. A quick Google suggests there are such things.

[chriswright03]

They are available but aren't cheap so many folk do with a car one instead.  I had an app for my phone that I could use for the coach and it never got me into any problems.

[duncan]

A foreign driver visiting the UK should know the UK signs (try telling French / German police you didn't know their traffic laws), but one employed to drive here has absolutely no excuse.  Height notices in cabs should be in ft & ins as well as metric for all vehicles visiting the UK. 

[stewartingram]

You  can add POIs to TomTom satnavs, probably others. There are many POI add-ons, which include those for different restrictions such as height, width, weight etc. I'm not a truck driver, but have seen them, and added quite a few different ones to mine.

 

Stewart