Bridge bashing

[admiles]

20 hours ago, Sheffield said:

It is a pity that passengers can not claim from the lorry insurance for all the problems they will suffer. Some really big bills might at last make lorry drivers and owners a bit more careful.

 

Being a TM I'm interested in how you think this is the lorry owners fault? Just curious.

[admiles]

On 11/01/2020 at 15:03, uax6 said:

 

Foreign agency driver....

 

Andy G

 

In the interests of balance I'm going to say some of my best drivers over the years have been "foreign".  I've certainly had more problems (of many kinds) with UK drivers.

[caradoc]

1 hour ago, admiles said:

 

Being a TM I'm interested in how you think this is the lorry owners fault? Just curious.

 

Because it is surely the lorry owner/operator's responsibility to ensure that their Drivers are fully trained, competent, and provided with the right equipment (as per Ian Smeeton's post) so that the safety of anyone, on road or rail, is not compromised.

[Wickham Green]

2 hours ago, admiles said:

 

Being a TM I'm interested in how you think this is the lorry owners fault? Just curious.

Maybe it's just the lorry's fault for being too high !!

[johnofwessex]

22 hours ago, Ian Smeeton said:

I only drive a little puddle jumper of a 7.5 tonner, but it is still 12'2" high.

 

I had to do a delivery & pick up in an area which I was not too familiar with, but I knew that there was at least one low bridge in the area, although it is at least 18 months since I have done this drop, and last time was in a transit van, so no issues about height.

 

The company does have a Sat Nav, but only a bog standard car variety, and we are expected to use it in the Lorry.

 

I have lost counht of the times I have been sent down unsuitable roads, and directed through areas with a 6'6" width restriction.

 

The H & S chap was in the office as I was getting my instructions this morning.

 

I expressed doubts about access to the site that I was delivering to, and said that the company really should invest in an HGV SatNav.

 

£400, way too expensive. was the response.

 

I did mention that it was still a lot cheaper than a £10, 0000 + bill from Network Rail if I did c*ck it up.

 

We shall have to wait & see if anything happens.

 

As it is, I needn't have worried, the bridge that I was concerned about was 13', so a  good 10" headroom over my vehicle, but I did take it dead slow, just in case.

 

Regards from a just over minimum wage lorry driver.

 

Ian

 

What happens if someone is killed or injured as a result of a bridge strike??

 

Then managers & directors might get full board courtesy of Her Maj

[admiles]

20 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

Because it is surely the lorry owner/operator's responsibility to ensure that their Drivers are fully trained, competent, and provided with the right equipment (as per Ian Smeeton's post) so that the safety of anyone, on road or rail, is not compromised.

 

Well for a start the vehicles owner may not also be the operator. Lots of vehicles are leased.  You're also making the assumption that the owner/operator in this case didn't make sure the driver was fully trained, competent, and provided with the right equipment. How do you know he/she didn't? 

 

Drivers (of all types of vehicles) make mistakes, misjudgements, take their eye off the ball, whatever you want to call it all the time. They're human beings. You can give a driver all the training in the world, a state of the art, fully equipped vehicle and things like this will still unfortunately happen from time to time.

 

I'm not defending the driver or the owner/operator in this case because I simply don't know enough about the circumstances, but where humans are involved you will never get 100% safety.  

[admiles]

16 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

 

What happens if someone is killed or injured as a result of a bridge strike??

 

Then managers & directors might get full board courtesy of Her Maj

 

"Might" being the key word there. Depends who is deemed to be liable by the inevitable investigation. Only so much company managers/directors can do. 

[caradoc]

3 minutes ago, admiles said:

 

Well for a start the vehicles owner may not also be the operator. Lots of vehicles are leased.  You're also making the assumption that the owner/operator in this case didn't make sure the driver was fully trained, competent, and provided with the right equipment. How do you know he/she didn't? 

 

 

To turn that round, how do you know he/she did ? A previous poster stated that they are only issued with an totally unsuitable car sat nav for their high vehicle, and even after mentioning this to an H&S person, the issue was left unresolved. Given that anyone can effectively drive anywhere on our roads, without ever having been there before, the absolute minimum should be proper equipment supplied, by law, to drivers wherever necessary, and this most certainly applies to large vehicles which, on a daily basis, ram railway bridges. It is too important and dangerous a situation to be left to chance, and to just accept that, oh dear, these things happen. That does not apply to railway operations.

 

[admiles]

10 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

To turn that round, how do you know he/she did ? A previous poster stated that they are only issued with an totally unsuitable car sat nav for their high vehicle, and even after mentioning this to an H&S person, the issue was left unresolved. Given that anyone can effectively drive anywhere on our roads, without ever having been there before, the absolute minimum should be proper equipment supplied, by law, to drivers wherever necessary, and this most certainly applies to large vehicles which, on a daily basis, ram railway bridges. It is too important and dangerous a situation to be left to chance, and to just accept that, oh dear, these things happen. That does not apply to railway operations.

 

 

I didn't. As i said I'm not defending either driver or owner/operator.

What do you define as "proper equipment, by law, to drivers wherever necessary"?

 

Yes I'm sure large vehicles do ram bridges on a daily basis. They're driven by people who make mistakes. As are cars that ram trucks, pull-in right in front of trucks, cars that ram other cars, bikes, motorcycles, people etc etc. How would you stop this? Ideas please? 

 

Sorry but as I've already said you can take every precaution, provide all the equipment you like whether mandated by law or not but things like this will still happen.  As will SPADs, bufferstop strikes, shunting mishaps and a host of other c*ck-ups made by highly trained rail crew.

 

I'm not saying these things should happen. far from it. Just that they will because human being are involved and the cold hard fact is human beings make mistakes.  You seem to expect HGV drivers to be 100% perfect 100% of the time.

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, admiles said:

 

I didn't. As i said I'm not defending either driver or owner/operator.

What do you define as "proper equipment, by law, to drivers wherever necessary"?

 

 

It seems 'fair & reasonable' to me, to expect a driver or owner/operator to have a 'SatNav' or equivalent, which will give him/her adequate warning, if approaching a bridge or obstruction that may be too low. We are in the 21st Century & such devices have been around for well over a decade.

 

After all, would a truck driver hop into a cab of a strange vehicle and head off down the road, without knowing its height? I would hope not! If no one knows, then the driver shouldn't be going anywhere, until he finds out, by measurement himself if need be.

 

The question is really one of, 'who is going to pay for it'?

[Reorte]

8 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

It seems 'fair & reasonable' to me, to expect a driver or owner/operator to have a 'SatNav' or equivalent, which will give him/her adequate warning, if approaching a bridge or obstruction that may be too low. We are in the 21st Century & such devices have been around for well over a decade.

 

Or some way of figuring things out anyway, since ultimately the responsibility is the driver's. It wasn't acceptable to bash bridges before satnavs either after all, even though it happened. And I never like the idea that ever-increasing technology (even when it comes to things that have been around for a while, like satnavs) suddenly becomes something you must have. "It's the 21st century now" or words to that effect is usually something that makes me shudder...

[melmerby]

Another this morning in Carlisle on a bridge I know very well:

https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/18161749.trains-stand-west-coast-mainline-lorry-hits-railway-bridge-carlisle/

 

It's this one:

https://goo.gl/maps/J2kKM7VYHSG9oU2p7

[admiles]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

It seems 'fair & reasonable' to me, to expect a driver or owner/operator to have a 'SatNav' or equivalent, which will give him/her adequate warning, if approaching a bridge or obstruction that may be too low. We are in the 21st Century & such devices have been around for well over a decade.

 

After all, would a truck driver hop into a cab of a strange vehicle and head off down the road, without knowing its height? I would hope not! If no one knows, then the driver shouldn't be going anywhere, until he finds out, by measurement himself if need be.

 

The question is really one of, 'who is going to pay for it'?

 

I'd be absolutely amazed if you could find a HGV in the UK that doesn't have Satnav (unless it's only used for local shunt work)  to be honest.

 

Still doesn't stop a driver making a mistake and clouting a bridge though. Nor does it tell you the height of the vehicle.

Edited January 15, 2020 by admiles

[jcm@gwr]

The argument that the correct type of satnav is too expensive, is actually of their own making.

If all HGV owner/operators had bought the proper ones earlier, the price would have come down by now!

[caradoc]

5 hours ago, admiles said:

 

I didn't. As i said I'm not defending either driver or owner/operator.

What do you define as "proper equipment, by law, to drivers wherever necessary"?

 

I thought I had already defined that - Satnav that applies to the correct type of vehicle, not one for something much smaller. This should be made mandatory. I agree that accidents will still happen, but at least it would give drivers a better chance of avoiding getting themself and their employer into trouble, not to mention jeopardising safety on the road and the railway.

[admiles]

7 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

I thought I had already defined that - Satnav that applies to the correct type of vehicle, not one for something much smaller. This should be made mandatory. I agree that accidents will still happen, but at least it would give drivers a better chance of avoiding getting themself and their employer into trouble, not to mention jeopardising safety on the road and the railway.

 

I work around HGVs (from many companies, not just our own) and haven't seen one without a Satnav in years. I really can't see it making much difference to be honest. Any thing else other than a Satnav?

 

Just out of interest does anyone know if the vehicle that hit the bridge at Saxham had a Satnav?

Edited January 15, 2020 by admiles

[Reorte]

18 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

I thought I had already defined that - Satnav that applies to the correct type of vehicle, not one for something much smaller. This should be made mandatory. I agree that accidents will still happen, but at least it would give drivers a better chance of avoiding getting themself and their employer into trouble, not to mention jeopardising safety on the road and the railway.

 

Not sure I'd be much happier trusting the type of driver who manages to ram a lorry into a bridge to be on the roads at all, with a satnav with the restrictions programmed in or not. Even allowing for the fact that even the best of us aren't perfect and can make mistakes it still feels like another attempt at a technological sticking plaster. Why don't we expect the same level of professionalism from lorry drivers that we do for train drivers? Sure, the railways have plenty of technology to avoid incidents but the biggest factor must surely be insisting on professionalism in the first place.

 

I guess there's too much time pressure to expect drivers to familiarise themselves with a route beforehand, which is what's really needed because then they're much more likely to be aware of potential hazards such as low bridges if they make a wrong turning.

Edited January 15, 2020 by Reorte

[caradoc]

17 minutes ago, admiles said:

 

I work around HGVs (from many companies, not just our own) and haven't seen one without a Satnav in years. I really can't see it making much difference to be honest. Any thing else other than a Satnav?

 

Just out of interest does anyone know if the vehicle that hit the bridge at Saxham had a Satnav?

 

Are the Satnavs fitted to such lorries programmed to show, and highlight, structures (not just railway bridges) which they must not pass under, or over, and indeed roads unsuitable for large vehicles ? Possibly not, given the number of times lorries get stuck on tiny roads in villages. How about a Satnav system that displays a warning when a lorry is past the point of no return towards a low bridge, or other obstruction ? How about a Satnav connected to the vehicle which will not allow it to be started until the vehicle or trailer height has been input, and which then constantly displays this information ?

 

IMHO the seeming complacency around bridge strikes must not be allowed to continue, because one day all the holes in the swiss cheese will line up, and a lorry will displace a bridge deck just as a fast train is approaching, with devastating results.

 

[F-UnitMad]

15 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Why don't we expect the same level of professionalism from lorry drivers that we do for train drivers?

Because as I pointed out earlier, road drivers aren't paid a 'profesional' wage worthy of the name, so a lot of them unfortunately do come from the ' can't be @rsed' end of the workforce.

[johnofwessex]

1 hour ago, Reorte said:

 

........................... Why don't we expect the same level of professionalism from lorry drivers that we do for train drivers? Sure, the railways have plenty of technology to avoid incidents but the biggest factor must surely be insisting on professionalism in the first place.

 

..............................

 

We should be expecting professionalism from ALL drivers

[F-UnitMad]

5 hours ago, admiles said:

 

I'd be absolutely amazed if you could find a HGV in the UK that doesn't have Satnav (unless it's only used for local shunt work)  to be honest.

 

Still doesn't stop a driver making a mistake and clouting a bridge though. Nor does it tell you the height of the vehicle.

Last Transport Company I worked for was a very big outfit - none of it's trucks had Satnav well, up to 2016 at least. But it was run on such a threadbare shoestring that I doubt they have Satnav now, either.

 

4 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

 How about a Satnav connected to the vehicle which will not allow it to be started until the vehicle or trailer height has been input, and which then constantly displays this information ?

 

 

 

By law the height of a high vehicle must be displayed prominently in the cab anyway. I forget now what "high" starts at, something like 10'6" I think, but it's still down to the driver to know the height and adjust the sign accordingly. Whether it's a 'basic' sign with interchangeable numbers or the most high-techy device ever known to Man, it's no good if - as happened to me, and as I wrote about earlier in this thread - you put the wrong height in.

 

 

 

[Wickham Green]

15 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

........ How about a Satnav system that displays a warning when a lorry is past the point of no return towards a low bridge, or other obstruction ? ...........

 

Or better still shouts "STOP, YOU IDIOT" at the driver ....... or is wired into the controls to bring the vehicle to a gradual halt.

[Budgie]

8 hours ago, Wickham Green said:

Or better still shouts "STOP, YOU IDIOT" at the driver ....... or is wired into the controls to bring the vehicle to a gradual halt.

 

Surely bringing it to a gradual halt will allow it to hit the bridge. I would have thought an emergency stop would be better.

[royaloak]

On 15/01/2020 at 11:11, caradoc said:

 

To turn that round, how do you know he/she did ? A previous poster stated that they are only issued with an totally unsuitable car sat nav for their high vehicle, and even after mentioning this to an H&S person, the issue was left unresolved. Given that anyone can effectively drive anywhere on our roads, without ever having been there before, the absolute minimum should be proper equipment supplied, by law, to drivers wherever necessary, and this most certainly applies to large vehicles which, on a daily basis, ram railway bridges. It is too important and dangerous a situation to be left to chance, and to just accept that, oh dear, these things happen. That does not apply to railway operations.

 

Easiest answer then is to NOT issue any satnav and leave it up to the professional driver to find their way!

 

Just because the twatnav advises someone to go 'that' way under the low bridge or weight limit doesnt mean the driver has to, they have the option of ignoring the advice and going a different, safer, legal route or even, shock horror, using their eyes and seeing the issue deciding an alternative route might be a better idea.

 

Satnavs are merely a driver aid.

[royaloak]

9 minutes ago, Budgie said:

 

Surely bringing it to a gradual halt will allow it to hit the bridge. I would have thought an emergency stop would be better.

At which point white van man, 4X4 yummy mummy, texting Teresa or pissed up Pete (I think that covers everyone ) will run up the arris of the trailer using the 'I didnt expect it to stop as quickly' (non) defence.