Bridge bashing

[phil-b259]

4 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

What an utterly ridiculous thing to say. If he has been ill-served by anything other than his own carelessness (which could have killed someone) it is by his employer in allowing him to drive double-decker buses without apparently ensuring he was aware of hazards in the area.

 

 

Its not ridiculous!

 

Health and Safety (note, ANYTHING that is a 'Hazard' in any shape or form falls under H&S) is NOT just a matter for the individual worker - the organisation who put the hazard there in the first place has a duty of care to ensure that persons are adequately warned about it.

 

The Bus company therefore has a responsibility to regularly brief their drivers on restricted height bridges and ensure that any route alterations do not take buses under them.

 

Network Rail have a responsibility to provide CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS signage at the bridge structure - NOT halfway through it - so that drivers have the best possible chance of noticing the restriction

 

The Highway authority have a responsibility to provide approach signage of sufficient clarity (i.e. not small dirty signs as seen on one of the streetview images).

 

The highways authority have a responsibility to ensure that official diversions do not take vehicles down roads with lower clearance bridges than would be found on the closed road.

Edited December 13, 2019 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

10 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

The planned and actual routes are shown in the BBC News Report, link as per the OP yesterday for this incident;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-50759983

 

 

Have you checked out the actual situation; There is a road sign on the approach to the junction which clearly shows a low bridge on the side road, plus there is (or rather was) a sign on the bridge itself, and yellow/black chevrons painted on it. I'm still not sure how either Network Rail or the local authority can be held responsible, or in what way they are incompetent.

 

 

 

The highway authority - because the advanced signage from one direction was dirty and small. Compare  https://goo.gl/maps/7vLjZh5XefgfWmg16   and https://goo.gl/maps/EE9XzWeVhs3hFVYh9

 

Network Rail - because the official guidance I posted above points out that 'composite bridge structures' like this one require special treatment. Namely install measures which make all bridge decks / arches appear to be of the same height. Putting Chevrons in a dimly lit place and not cleaning them doesn't count as making a bridge deck 'easily visible' by approaching traffic.

 

 

[phil-b259]

On 12/12/2019 at 14:48, Wickham Green said:

If the road closure was because of a fallen tree there might not have been any time to put an "official" detour in place.

 

 

Which is why making sure roadside signage on the approach and the structure itself is visible to approaching vehicles is of vital importance.

 

 

Edited December 13, 2019 by phil-b259

[SM42]

7 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The highway authority - because the advanced signage from one direction was dirty and small. Compare  https://goo.gl/maps/7vLjZh5XefgfWmg16   and https://goo.gl/maps/EE9XzWeVhs3hFVYh9

 

Network Rail - because the official guidance I posted above points out that 'composite bridge structures' like this one require special treatment. Namely install measures which make all bridge decks / arches appear to be of the same height. Putting Chevrons in a dimly lit place and not cleaning them doesn't count as making a bridge deck 'easily visible' by approaching traffic.

 

 

 

The official guidance posted shows it is the Highways Manager's responsibility to sort out the bridge signage with the owners of the structures.

 

Andy

[phil-b259]

7 minutes ago, SM42 said:

 

The official guidance posted shows it is the Highways Manager's responsibility to sort out the bridge signage with the owners of the structures.

 

Andy

 

And if they don't? Its in NRs interest to be proactive as although compensation can be claimed by them with respect to bridge strikes, its much more preferable for them to not happen in the first place

 

The point is that while the bus driver in this case has some responsibility for what occurred, the images on the BBC article and Google Streetview quite clearly show lots of missed opportunities by the highway authority to make it easier for the driver to realise the bus wouldn't fit.

[corneliuslundie]

Am I right in thinking that that map showing the diversion, link posted earlier is wrong? if you follow it you get to two bridges close together, but they are both girder bridges, so not the site of the accident.

Jonathanl

[melmerby]

It is correct.

Compare the white building on the BBC link with this:

https://goo.gl/maps/ie8sZpeS5TVPHa7U8

 

If you turn right past Thrifty car rental you hit the bridge.

 

Street view:

https://goo.gl/maps/DDaMq91iSDJVsByf7

 

Edited December 13, 2019 by melmerby
clarity

[caradoc]

3 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

And if they don't? Its in NRs interest to be proactive as although compensation can be claimed by them with respect to bridge strikes, its much more preferable for them to not happen in the first place

 

The point is that while the bus driver in this case has some responsibility for what occurred, the images on the BBC article and Google Streetview quite clearly show lots of missed opportunities by the highway authority to make it easier for the driver to realise the bus wouldn't fit.

 

You do make some valid points in your various posts phil-b259, but I do not agree that the driver just has some responsibility ? Surely, given that this was a professional, local driver, trained and passed competent to take charge of a large vehicle conveying 70 or more passengers, they must have most, if not all, responsibilty for this incident ? Thankfully it did not end up as dreadful as the very similar crash just over 25 years ago at West Street in Glasgow, in which five people, including three children, were killed.

 

I would ask the question again; Does this particular structure have a history of being struck, in other words was it a bridge where additional protective measures should have been installed ?

 

I have to say that, having in my railway career dealt with an unbelievable number of bridge strikes, including three in the same shift, my sympathy for the drivers of the vehicles involved is extremely limited.

 

 

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, caradoc said:

 

You do make some valid points in your various posts phil-b259, but I do not agree that the driver just has some responsibility ? Surely, given that this was a professional, local driver, trained and passed competent to take charge of a large vehicle conveying 70 or more passengers, they must have most, if not all, responsibilty for this incident ? Thankfully it did not end up as dreadful as the very similar crash just over 25 years ago at West Street in Glasgow, in which five people, including three children, were killed.

 

I would ask the question again; Does this particular structure have a history of being struck, in other words was it a bridge where additional protective measures should have been installed ?

 

I have to say that, having in my railway career dealt with an unbelievable number of bridge strikes, including three in the same shift, my sympathy for the drivers of the vehicles involved is extremely limited.

 

 

 

Was the driver of a train that ran a red signal at Purley in 1989 and ran into another killed 5 and injured 88 not also 'a professional, local driver, trained and passed competent to take charge of a large vehicle conveying 70 or more passengers'?

 

All train  drivers have do is stop when they see a red, how hard is that to understand might be the obvious retort,  that signal which was SPADed complied with all the requirements in force at the time - just like some folk are saying 'well there was a height restriction sign on the lower girder portion and its not hard for a driver to see it.

 

However in that case it was found that British Rail had not acted on previous SPADs at that location (four drivers had previously passed the signal when at danger in the previous five years*) and consequently blame for the accident was spread over several parties - not just one particular driver.

 

What about the Ladbroke Grove crash - the official report is pretty scathing about the failures of Railtrack, Thames Trains etc - not just saying 'well there was a red signal and the driver didn't stop so its all their fault.

 

Yes I appreciate that the incident in Swansea was a bridge bash not a train crash - but the same principle applies, even the most conscientious professional can make mistakes and thus the onus is on companys / authorities to pro-actively mitigate them.

 

Moreover in recent decades there has been much study into how the brain copes with sudden changes to workload - a recent incident on LU where a train on the Jubilee line ran between Finchley Rd and West Hampstead in passenger service with half its doors open highlighted how having to switch between the relatively mundane 'driving' (the Jubilee line uses ATO) to suddenly having to try and fault find a tricky fault with trains building up behind you etc means the chances of mistakes greatly increase.

 

The bus in Swansea was diverted from its usual route due to a fallen tree, and as with the LU incident the driver is jolted from their usual routine and having to think on their feet. In such a situation the visibility of hazards makes a BIG difference - and in this case the bridge was no ordinary structure. Again I refer you to the official guidance which specifically lists 'composite structures' as presenting a much grater hazard than a 'simple' low height structure - yet the height restriction isn't particularly 'in your face' as shown below.

 

As such this incident is not a 'normal' bridge strike where the signage / bridge structure is easily seen / straightforward to interpret and its clear the driver has the only one at fault. Yes the bus driver must take some of the blame - but as with the other railway based incidents I have highlighted, the inaction of others as regards the 'visibility' of the height restriction has increased the risk of it happening in the first place and they consequently must also take some of the blame.

 

Rubber flaps, extra signage or even some form of collision protection beam are in relative terms not that costly and may well have caused the bus driver to stop before going under the arched portion of the bridge.

 

 

* A factor which led to the drivers conviction for Manslaughter being quashed by the court of appeal in 2007

 

Edited December 13, 2019 by phil-b259

[PhilJ W]

4 hours ago, melmerby said:

 

 

If you turn right past Thrifty car rental you hit the bridge.

 

Street view:

https://goo.gl/maps/DDaMq91iSDJVsByf7

 

If you follow the road towards the bridge on the street view above you are dazzled by the low sun as you go beneath the arched bridge. This could be a possible explanation as to why the bus driver didn't see the bridge.

[melmerby]

35 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

If you follow the road towards the bridge on the street view above you are *dazzled by the low sun as you go beneath the arched bridge. This could be a possible explanation as to why the bus driver didn't see the bridge.

Apparently it was cloudy and raining but with low light levels that warning on the second bridge would not be as obvious as IMHO it should. Vehicle lights wouldn't necesarily pick it out.

Not having any prior warning on the arched bridge is unbelievable.

Even boarding in the inner open top of the arch would make the lower deck more obvious

 

*There are two more earlier Google views and they are even worse!

 

[peanuts]

17 hours ago, Wickham Green said:

Just a thought, if aircraft have devices to detect other objects ( planes or mountains ) in the vicinity and cars have devises to tell you when you're parking too close to other cars ( etc. ) - maybe double-deckers should be fitted with something to slam on the anchors if they approach something only a single-decker could get under ? ........................ OK, the Patent's mine and I expect the royalties to start rolling in any moment ...... not !

having had the misfortune to drive a truck fitted with "active cruise control" that has an anti collision system that has a wonderfull habit of slamming the brakes on when it detects an obstruction problem is a change in the colour of the tarmac causes the sytstem to slam the breaks on for no reason very unnerving for the driver and anbody following .two busses on similar route following each other would have the rear one continuosley sounding false alarms with a similar system tiring and distracting for the driver 

[caradoc]

9 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The bus in Swansea was diverted from its usual route due to a fallen tree, and as with the LU incident the driver is jolted from their usual routine and having to think on their feet. In such a situation the visibility of hazards makes a BIG difference - and in this case the bridge was no ordinary structure. Again I refer you to the official guidance which specifically lists 'composite structures' as presenting a much grater hazard than a 'simple' low height structure - yet the height restriction isn't particularly 'in your face' as shown below.

 

Clearly we have different views phil-b259 and are not going to agree, but the final points I would make, in response to the edited part of your post, are;

 

Was the bus actually diverted by some official means, or did the Driver just take it on themself to go that way ?

When the usual routine is disrupted, that is exactly when extra caution must be applied.

I reiterate, the Driver was local and, given that as mentioned before other bus services, operated by single deckers, pass under that bridge, I find it hard to believe that he was totally unaware of a low bridge on that short section of road.

 

Given that the bus Driver has apparently been charged by the Police, it will be interesting to see what the outcome is.

 

I will leave it there.

 

[Fat Controller]

56 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

Clearly we have different views phil-b259 and are not going to agree, but the final points I would make, in response to the edited part of your post, are;

 

Was the bus actually diverted by some official means, or did the Driver just take it on themself to go that way ?

When the usual routine is disrupted, that is exactly when extra caution must be applied.

I reiterate, the Driver was local and, given that as mentioned before other bus services, operated by single deckers, pass under that bridge, I find it hard to believe that he was totally unaware of a low bridge on that short section of road.

 

Given that the bus Driver has apparently been charged by the Police, it will be interesting to see what the outcome is.

 

I will leave it there.

 

Had he carried straight along Neath Road for a few hundred metres more, he would have come to a roundabout, whence he could have returned on Morfa Road towards the city centre. 

I do wonder if he'd had a 'helpful' passenger giving directions? I have witnessed these on diverted bus services; they always seem to get the bus to drive past their front doors.

I've had a look at the large-scale OS map of the immediate area in 'The South Wales main-line; Swansea to Llanelli'. The 'Landore Social Club' used to be 'Imperial Metals Social Club' . The road on which the accident took place is not indicated as a highway, but simply as a 'subway'; it had been part of a haulage route from the copperworks to the tip that abutted Landore shed for many years.

 

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

Clearly we have different views phil-b259 and are not going to agree, but the final points I would make, in response to the edited part of your post, are;

 

Was the bus actually diverted by some official means, or did the Driver just take it on themself to go that way ?

When the usual routine is disrupted, that is exactly when extra caution must be applied.

I reiterate, the Driver was local and, given that as mentioned before other bus services, operated by single deckers, pass under that bridge, I find it hard to believe that he was totally unaware of a low bridge on that short section of road.

 

Given that the bus Driver has apparently been charged by the Police, it will be interesting to see what the outcome is.

 

I will leave it there.

 

In all such incidents the ultimate responsibility lies with the Driver - simple as that.  However an important feature of all modern day incident investigation - such as a collision like Ladbroke Grove - is to investigate the procedures and and management systems etc to see if they have any bearing on the way in which the Driver reacted (or didn't react) taking into account a mass of factors such as training, management instructions and so on.  Hence the outcome of the formal investigation into the Ladbroke Grove collision.

 

In the case of an incident involving a road vehicle the Driver inevitably has to have a rather different kind of responsibility because ultimately he/she alone is the ultimate decision maker.  Clearly if a 'manager' on behalf of the employer has instructed (or possibly even suggested?) that a driver of a road vehicle should follow a particular route  some of that responsibility will be, or should be, transferred,  similarly if a hazard is not correctly signed and indicated the relevant Highway Authority might also share some of the responsibility.  But an important difference on the highway is that the police are the 'investigating authority' and if they find a driver has allegedly failed to comply with a road traffic sign they are required to act in accordance with the law - and failure to comply with a road traffic sign is an offence under the 1988 Road Traffic Act.  If the case is taken to court for trial it is then up the defendant's legal representation to enter any pleas of mitigation in respect, for example, of the type and visibility of the signage or the level of fine etc in the event of conviction but the offence remains an offence whatever the mitigation.

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

In all such incidents the ultimate responsibility lies with the Driver - simple as that.  However an important feature of all modern day incident investigation - such as a collision like Ladbroke Grove - is to investigate the procedures and and management systems etc to see if they have any bearing on the way in which the Driver reacted (or didn't react) taking into account a mass of factors such as training, management instructions and so on.  Hence the outcome of the formal investigation into the Ladbroke Grove collision.

 

In the case of an incident involving a road vehicle the Driver inevitably has to have a rather different kind of responsibility because ultimately he/she alone is the ultimate decision maker.  Clearly if a 'manager' on behalf of the employer has instructed (or possibly even suggested?) that a driver of a road vehicle should follow a particular route  some of that responsibility will be, or should be, transferred,  similarly if a hazard is not correctly signed and indicated the relevant Highway Authority might also share some of the responsibility.  But an important difference on the highway is that the police are the 'investigating authority' and if they find a driver has allegedly failed to comply with a road traffic sign they are required to act in accordance with the law - and failure to comply with a road traffic sign is an offence under the 1988 Road Traffic Act.  If the case is taken to court for trial it is then up the defendant's legal representation to enter any pleas of mitigation in respect, for example, of the type and visibility of the signage or the level of fine etc in the event of conviction but the offence remains an offence whatever the mitigation.

Agreed, if the instructions were to go up a one way street the wrong way, the driver MUST comply with the LAW and claiming that the given instructions, somehow entitled the driver to go the wrong way, would be dismissed instantly.

It may of course be different, if an oversize load with special precautions, such as road closure to normal traffic, probably with a police escort.

[phil-b259]

13 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Agreed, if the instructions were to go up a one way street the wrong way, the driver MUST comply with the LAW and claiming that the given instructions, somehow entitled the driver to go the wrong way, would be dismissed instantly.

It may of course be different, if an oversize load with special precautions, such as road closure to normal traffic, probably with a police escort.

 

If however the no entry signage was misleading then the driver may well escape conviction.

 

Just because the Police charge someone with an offence - it doesn't mean that the charged person will be prosecuted, nor that they will be found guilty in court.

 

People should take note that breaking the speed limit is a statutory offence - and going by the reaction of some on hear you would expect a 100% conviction rate.

 

The reality is however that with a sufficiently skilled lawyer, mistakes by 3rd parties can, and are, used to successfully defend drivers in a court of law. For the laws regarding speeding to be enforced it is a requirement that ALL the necessary signage is both in place and in a good, readable condition. One sign being missing / dirty is all it takes to get the charges thrown out and I have highlighted once such lawyer before....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Freeman

 

This is also why the conviction for manslaughter of the train driver involved in the 1989 Purley crash was quashed - Evidence came to light which meant it was unsafe in law to continue to assert that he, and only he was responsible for killing 5 people!

 

Thus while the bus driver in Swansea might well have been arrested and charged with one or more offences, it doesn't automatically follow that he will actually end up being prosecuted for them, or indeed be found guilty of said offences - nor that the actions / inactions of other parties are immune from criticism.

Edited December 15, 2019 by phil-b259

[Siberian Snooper]

I was in the canteen one day when a driver was having a discussion about an incident that he was party to when working in London. There had been an accident and the police had ordered him to go down a single track road that he knew had a low bridge and had told the officer that he could not get his bus under said bridge, but he/she was inssitent that he go that way, so he did, but stopped short of the bridge and sat and waitted to see what would happen next. After a short while the traffic had backed up to where the officer was so they came to investigate the situation, there was a very red faced officer, that now had to sort out the mess as the only way the bus could go was backwards to the original junction and no way for the vehicles behind him to get past. I think he said it took nearly 2 hours to sort it all out.

 

 

[petethemole]

Very local to us is the Swaythling Arch, once notorious for bridge strikes, so notorious that it had false sides added to protect the original c1839 brick structure.  For years it has been protected by an IR beam system that detected overheight vehicles and illuminated a sign reading OVERHEIGHT VEHICLE DIVERT. An alternative route is available in both directions at that point.  It still claimed the occasional victim. Recent road improvements works finished this week and inluded new cycle routes and all new traffic lights.  Conspicuous by its absence is the height detector and the bridge is now protected solely by signage.  I foresee an increase in bridge strikes in the near future. I shall contact the Council Highways Dept, an organisation that I am convinced justifies its continued existence by generating as many problems as it purports to solve.

 

The bridge earlier this year:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.9421645,-1.3751414,3a,75y,291.07h,80.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9coRQ_xZ3QtGPVlZSuOcXg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

 

The brickwork facing the camera is modern. Looking through the arch, the darker area is the extent of the original bridge.

[F-UnitMad]

3 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said:

I was in the canteen one day when a driver was having a discussion about an incident that he was party to when working in London. There had been an accident and the police had ordered him to go down a single track road that he knew had a low bridge and had told the officer that he could not get his bus under said bridge, but he/she was inssitent that he go that way, so he did, but stopped short of the bridge and sat and waitted to see what would happen next. After a short while the traffic had backed up to where the officer was so they came to investigate the situation, there was a very red faced officer, that now had to sort out the mess as the only way the bus could go was backwards to the original junction and no way for the vehicles behind him to get past. I think he said it took nearly 2 hours to sort it all out.

 

 

Must admit that if I'd have been in that situation, with local knowledge of the low bridge, I'd have refused point blank to go that way, & stayed right where the Officer was.

I did face a similar issue of 'diversion due to accident' one morning on the A34 Bloxwich High St. The policeman was directing all traffic down a side street. I didn't have knowledge of the back streets, and there were no other large vehicles like buses or other trucks ahead of me to give me a clue as to how suitable they were for a Artic + 45ft Container.

I stopped and asked the Officer if I could get the truck down the side streets? He was rather irritable with me and asked me what I meant? (???!!!!). So I asked again, Can I get this (waving at the big truck right behind me), down there (indicating the narrow side street with cars parked either side)??

Even more irritated, he told me I could, so I had to take his word for it.

 

He was right, but only just.....  

 

[RJS1977]

I remember some years ago (2006 IIRC), I was riding in a convoy of Routemasters in a Christmas Lights Tour round London. For some reason we crossed Tower Bridge to the South Bank and wound up on the south side of London Bridge station. The convoy got lost and wound up trawling the back streets for a route back under the railway that had sufficient clearance. Eventually the convoy leader found a long tunnel under the station (may have been Bermondsey Street) which was signed as having sufficient clearance in the centre of the tunnel. So he drove his bus up the centre line of the road followed by the other six buses. 2/3 of the way through the tunnel, we came across a traffic calming chicane which blocked off the right hand side and centre of the tunnel, leaving only the left hand side (with lower clearance owing to the arched roof). The seven buses then had no option but to reverse back out of the tunnel, one by one.....

[pH]

I saw a driver take the first 10 feet or so off the roof of a double-decker (fortunately empty) against a bridge in Greenock. We had been the first of a group of buses doing lunchtime workers' runs. We had turned by reversing into a side street. The next bus up couldn't do that because of traffic in the side street. He passed us going up the street, and my driver said “He's going to hit that bridge – let's go and watch.” So we did ... and he did!

 

We talked to the other driver after it happened. He said, when he couldn't turn in the side street, he'd seen a big doorway into a machine shop further up the street, and thought he'd turn there. As he approached the doorway, he'd then seen another side street further up again, and decided to use that, rather than turning into the machine shop. What he hadn't registered was the low arched bridge between him and the side street.

 

Of course, there was a lot of discussion of the incident in the canteen. Turns out, that wasn't the first time a bus had hit that bridge. It wasn't on any regular route, but the street through it could be a shortcut (for cars). One driver tried to go under it, downhill. After hitting the bridge, he phoned in to the garage to report it. They asked where the bus was. Allegedly, the answer was “Most of it's through the bridge, but the roof's on the other side.”. And there was a rumour that some one had actually got a decker under it – and there was one bus in the garage with all the roof ventilators on one side flattened.

[PhilJ W]

The bus station in Chelmsford is alongside the railway station separated by a low arched bridge. The Bristol Lowdeckers operated by Eastern National could just get under the bridge if the driver kept to the centre of the road. The Lodeckers also had ventilators along the edges of the roof. The workshop in Chelmsford were constantly replacing ventilators removed by going under that bridge.

[pH]

10 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

The Bristol Lowdeckers operated by Eastern National could just get under the bridge if the driver kept to the centre of the road. The Lodeckers also had ventilators along the edges of the roof. 

 

Phil, all the buses in the incidents I described were Lodekkas.

[RJS1977]

At one time, the footbridge connecting Apex Plaza to the 1989 Reading Station concourse (Brunel Arcade) had a noticeable dent on the north side as if something had hit it. I never quite figured out how, though, as the small car park beyond the bridge was only accessible by going under the bridge, so how could something strike the north side of it without first having struck the south side?