Bridge bashing

[pH]

2 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

Thanks for reminding me why I didn't want to drive buses or coaches!! 52 back seat drivers??!!?? No thanks!!!

Bristol Lodekka FLF - 70 seated, 8 standing. At pub closing time on a Friday night, the two crew could be the only reliably sober people on the bus, and the poor conductor/conductress was in the middle of it. The driver at least was in an isolated cab (though expected to provide aid if required).

[PhilJ W]

1 hour ago, pH said:

Bristol Lodekka FLF - 70 seated, 8 standing. At pub closing time on a Friday night, the two crew could be the only reliably sober people on the bus, and the poor conductor/conductress was in the middle of it. The driver at least was in an isolated cab (though expected to provide aid if required).

Back in the 60's my dad used to drive them for Eastern National. One particular clippie was a real hard case. One Saturday night a drunk tried to grab her and she done no more than swing the ticket machine into his face. He spent three weeks in hospital and his features were somewhat altered. She was charged with assault but was acquitted.

[pH]

45 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

One Saturday night a drunk tried to grab her and she done no more than swing the ticket machine into his face. 

Recommended as a standard defence move, or else a handful of pennies with some projecting between the fingers - a cheap knuckleduster. (Though I’m sure that would have done just as much damage to the hand.) Drivers would bring the fire extinguisher if needed. I never needed to do anything like that, but I knew crew who did.

[Siberian Snooper]

Because of the flimsy build of 'deckers, you normally see a bar on the front top left corner pillar to deflect tree branches and occasionally on the right as well.

 

 

[corneliuslundie]

From BBC News. Prosecution following the Swansea incident a while ago.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55091077

Jonathan

[PhilJ W]

2 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

From BBC News. Prosecution following the Swansea incident a while ago.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55091077

Jonathan

I hope they take the poor signage of the low bridge into account.

[corneliuslundie]

That was my wife's comment too.

Jonathan

[caradoc]

18 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

I hope they take the poor signage of the low bridge into account.

 

Presumably that will form a/the large part of the bus driver's defence, although clearly prosecution was considered correct. 

 

[JDW]

On 26/11/2020 at 08:32, Siberian Snooper said:

Because of the flimsy build of 'deckers, you normally see a bar on the front top left corner pillar to deflect tree branches and occasionally on the right as well.

 

 

 

It has nothing to do with the being "flimsy". The bar is a tree guard, to protect the glazing. Modern double deckers have much larger, more expensive pieces of glass both front and side. Replacement costs a lot in terms of parts and time, as bonded glazing takes longer to replace than traditional gasket glazing (as the name suggests, it is bonded to the frame, and adds to structural strength). They also protect both the paintwork and the (often fibreglass) front mouldings from unneccessary cosmetic damage. 

 

Many operators specify a nearside guard, some fit an offside one too, especially ones in rural areas or often seen on older buses used for schools which might be using roads not otherwise used by high vehicles. Even where trees are either pruned or kept at bay by passing traffic, heavy rain or snow can and does cause branches to sag, and bad weather can leave them broken and hanging lower than normal. 

 

It's not a substitute for driver observation nor road maintenance, but is there as a sensible precaution to minimise unneccesary damage to expensive assets.

[ejstubbs]

13 hours ago, JDW said:

It has nothing to do with the being "flimsy".

 

Given that the bar is attached to the upper deck structure, it would be a bit pointless if damage due to 'flimsiness' were the risk being mitigated...

[JDW]

32 minutes ago, ejstubbs said:

 

Given that the bar is attached to the upper deck structure, it would be a bit pointless if damage due to 'flimsiness' were the risk being mitigated...

 

...also a very good point!

[peanuts]

looks like bridge bashing is not a new phenomenon 

ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT
NEWBOLD STREET, ROCHDALE.
24 JUNE 1967

"POLICE MANNING A ROAD BLOCK AT THE JUNCTION OF MILNROW ROAD AND ALBERT ROYDS STREET [CALAMITY CORNER] WERE AMAZED TO SEE A LARGE PANTECHNICON TURN DOWN NEWBOLD STREET JUST SHORT OF THE ROAD BLOCK.   A FEW SECONDS LATER THEY HEARD THE BANG AS THE VEHICLE JAMMED ITSELF UNDER THE LOW STONE ARCHWAY OF THE RAILWAY BRIDGE ON NEWBOLD STREET.
ONE OF THE THREE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAB WAS TAKEN TO HOSPITAL AFTER BEING THROWN THROUGH THE WINDSCREEN, BUT WAS DISCHARGED AFTER TREATMENT."

[corneliuslundie]

A well named corner apparently.

Jonathan

[SHMD]

Some good modelling info under that arch.

Is he in his slippers?

 

 

Kev.

 

[kevinlms]

13 hours ago, peanuts said:

looks like bridge bashing is not a new phenomenon 

ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT
NEWBOLD STREET, ROCHDALE.
24 JUNE 1967

"POLICE MANNING A ROAD BLOCK AT THE JUNCTION OF MILNROW ROAD AND ALBERT ROYDS STREET [CALAMITY CORNER] WERE AMAZED TO SEE A LARGE PANTECHNICON TURN DOWN NEWBOLD STREET JUST SHORT OF THE ROAD BLOCK.   A FEW SECONDS LATER THEY HEARD THE BANG AS THE VEHICLE JAMMED ITSELF UNDER THE LOW STONE ARCHWAY OF THE RAILWAY BRIDGE ON NEWBOLD STREET.
ONE OF THE THREE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAB WAS TAKEN TO HOSPITAL AFTER BEING THROWN THROUGH THE WINDSCREEN, BUT WAS DISCHARGED AFTER TREATMENT."

It almost fitted, a bit faster, maybe!

 

It's not even close, I wonder for what reason the driver so wanted to avoid the roadblock? Interesting answers, no doubt.

[F-UnitMad]

2 hours ago, kevinlms said:

I wonder for what reason the driver so wanted to avoid the roadblock? Interesting answers, no doubt.

The clue might be in the description? "Road" & "block"...?? The usual route was closed, by the Police it would seem, for whatever reason, and so the lorry had to divert?

Anyway those old British lorrys were notoriously underpowered - it probably couldn't have gone any faster than it was already when it hit the bridge!!

[Wickham Green too]

18 hours ago, peanuts said:

 

"POLICE MANNING A ROAD BLOCK AT THE JUNCTION OF MILNROW ROAD AND ALBERT ROYDS STREET [CALAMITY CORNER] WERE AMAZED TO SEE A LARGE PANTECHNICON TURN DOWN NEWBOLD STREET JUST SHORT OF THE ROAD BLOCK.  .....

 

 

Ah - those were the days - nobody uses words like PANTECHNICON nowadays ! ( As pantechnicons go, I'd say it was quite a small one, actually ! ) 

Edited December 7, 2020 by Wickham Green too

[corneliuslundie]

A 1965 registration, so not exactly an elderly vehicle. And on home territory by the looks of it.

Was kevinlms thinking that the driver might have had a reason for avoiding the police? Presumably the road block was because of an accident or similar rather than looking for criminals! A bit early to be smuggling illegal immigrants.

Jonathan

[bigherb]

3 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

Ah - those were the days - nobody uses words like PANTECHNICON nowadays ! ( As pantechnicons go, I'd say it was quite a small one, actually ! ) 

You right it wasn't an actual Pantechnicon (removal lorry) just a general goods lorry (short dropdown tail board).

[RJS1977]

I notice from Google that Newbold Street no longer runs right through, and the way under the bridge is now only a footpath.

 

It's getting on for quarter of a mile from the bridge to the site of the road block, so the lorry must have been going at a decent speed for the collision to be heard.

 

Looking at the map, I suspect the block was a police checkpoint of some sort, as there is another possible diversion that I'm sure the police would have been sending traffic down if the block was down to something like a flooded drain.

[ajwffc]

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/perth-kinross/1810408/driver-charged-by-police-after-supermarket-lorry-bashes-perth-bridge/

 

street view of bridge

https://goo.gl/maps/LbjEkhQQhRqMr2jU6

[PhilJ W]

38 minutes ago, ajwffc said:

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/perth-kinross/1810408/driver-charged-by-police-after-supermarket-lorry-bashes-perth-bridge/

 

street view of bridge

https://goo.gl/maps/LbjEkhQQhRqMr2jU6

Thats not exactly low at 15 feet, it must have been a very high truck.

[ajwffc]

28 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Thats not exactly low at 15 feet, it must have been a very high truck.

from the pics i seen on facebook it was a double deck trailer 

[Wickham Green too]

Now, if ALL low bridges had been built on a skew like that so overheight vehicles were 'persuaded' onto their sides ..................

[Busmansholiday]

He's being prosecuted because the sign is a circular one so is mandatory. It doesn't matter if your vehicle fits under (there's usually a few inches extra height in a bridge) if it's above 15' (and this clearly is)  it's illegal to go under it. Generally low bridge signs are triangular which is advisory.