Bridge bashing

[SamThomas]

13 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

Given the amount HGV drivers are - allegedly being paid now, why cant the truck owners pay for a proper 'Trucker' satnav with all the height width & weight restrictions on it?

IMHO traucks should be fitted with such SatNavs & they should be included in the drivers daily walk round as a safety device.

 

I have my own "truckers" SatNav.

[SamThomas]

13 hours ago, Trainshed Terry said:

 

Unfortunately it would only increase the costs of transporting goods, as most haulage company's are stretched on how much the cost of fuel and road tax costs. Ever since deregulation of the road haulage many years ago, it still a very tough market to make a priffit in.

 

It still the cheapest way to transporting goods.

   

Many of the logistics companies already have SatNavs tailor made for the rountes/vehicle size/weight built into their telematics.

 

Even if the company if a "budget" outfit if they cannot afford a few hundred pounds for a decent SatNav one wonders where else they have "penny pinched".

On the flip side though you have the aspect of drivers who don't care about looking after the trucks equipment.

[SamThomas]

2 hours ago, Hobby said:

It looks like it should clear it if it was lowered flat, had he started to lift it or was it partly up?

Anything with hydralics should be locked in place before moving off - otherwise it is possible under some circumstances that vibration may cause pressure to build up in the ram & start to raise it.

& no, I'm not an expert on hydralics but I know a man who is.

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, PhilJ W said:

......  it was probably just leaving the site or the driver had simply forgotten to lower the body.

Yes ..... if that was a railway vehicle, the hydraulics would be interlocked to prevent any movement until the body was down and locked  -  no doubt the level of safety that makes road haulage competitive.

[corneliuslundie]

The news item on the BBC said it was just leaving the site in Machynlleth where a new bridge is being built. (I think it is the long promised new road bridge over the river.)

The BBC says that the vehicle is owned by Richard Yorke, but it is not in the company's livery, it says Hayes across the front and there is no mention of this kind of activity on the Richard Yorke website (they are based near here in a narrow lane in the hills above Newtown and do vehicle repairs and breakdown rescue but not heavy haulage). So I think the BBC may have it wrong.

Jonathan

 

[Michael Hodgson]

Putting the height on display in the cab and getting the signs right is a good start, and it's all very well for a satnav to tell you to take a higher route in the first place.  But in this day and age with driverless car technology getting quite advanced, isn't it possible to fit some sort of sensor to the top of the trailer and to at least signal a warning to the the driver or even to apply the brakes?

[Talltim]

2 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Yes ..... if that was a railway vehicle, the hydraulics would be interlocked to prevent any movement until the body was down and locked  -  no doubt the level of safety that makes road haulage competitive.

There are operations that require the tipper to move whle the bed is raised, If you've ever seen them tarmacing a road, they tip into the hopper of the laying machine while it is moving. (In fact the machine possibly pushes the lorry forward)

[Fat Controller]

7 minutes ago, Talltim said:

There are operations that require the tipper to move whle the bed is raised, If you've ever seen them tarmacing a road, they tip into the hopper of the laying machine while it is moving. (In fact the machine possibly pushes the lorry forward)

A fully-laden tipper needs to draw forward if it's to discharge fully, unless it's got a very short body.

[37114]

2 hours ago, Hobby said:

@F-UnitMad misread it, then, apologies... 

 

Just out of interest when you were driving how do those "bridge height" signs work from the lorry driver's point of view? Do you take them as gospel, so if your lorry is 2.9m tall and the sign says 3.0m would you go through or would you allow some sort of "extra" clearance? (Following on from Colin's post above yours).

In my experience there are a lot of drivers who know if the sign says 3.0m the bridge is likely 3.2m and will chance it anyway. Many a time I heard an old hand say to another driver "Bridge at place X is signed at 13ft6, but I always get our 13ft9 trailers under it". 99 times out of 100 you are OK until someone tries it with a 13ft 9 trailer that is being pulled by a different make of tractor unit which has a higher fifth wheel and a lightly loaded trailer and then hits the bridge.

[Reorte]

34 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Putting the height on display in the cab and getting the signs right is a good start, and it's all very well for a satnav to tell you to take a higher route in the first place.  But in this day and age with driverless car technology getting quite advanced, isn't it possible to fit some sort of sensor to the top of the trailer and to at least signal a warning to the the driver or even to apply the brakes?

 

Probably, but the hard part will be to get it to not respond to every tree that the top might just brush.

[Nick C]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Putting the height on display in the cab and getting the signs right is a good start, and it's all very well for a satnav to tell you to take a higher route in the first place.  But in this day and age with driverless car technology getting quite advanced, isn't it possible to fit some sort of sensor to the top of the trailer and to at least signal a warning to the the driver or even to apply the brakes?

Some low bridges already have such a device - certainly the one next to Swaythling station does, sensing overheight loads and displaying a warning - you can just about see it in this view warning the bus to turn (which it will, to go past the University halls by the station)

[petethemole]

11 minutes ago, Nick C said:

Some low bridges already have such a device - certainly the one next to Swaythling station does, sensing overheight loads and displaying a warning - you can just about see it in this view warning the bus to turn (which it will, to go past the University halls by the station)

Those buses have a transponder that gives an audible warning to the driver.  The bridge itself has been given false sides to protect the original structure and the railway formation.

[lmsforever]

Basically there is no excuse for a truck hitting a low bridge maximum height of vehicle should be displayed in cab and driver should know this anyway. The height and warning signs are displayed very clearly on the bridges and also on signs approaching said bridge. The reason for these incedents is human ie.  the driver there is no excuse for them  and those concerned should have their HGV licence revoked and sued for neglijence by owners of the bridge.If you drive an HGV you should be a responsible person who takes careful note of road and associated areas.Thank god the majority are well trained responsible men and women as they do an arduous job and certainly do not want to have unnersacery problems.

[Talltim]

That road is named a little ironically

[jonny777]

4 minutes ago, Talltim said:

That road is named a little ironically

 

Or possibly, the road was named years before the bridge was built? 

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, Nick C said:

Some low bridges already have such a device - certainly the one next to Swaythling station does, sensing overheight loads and displaying a warning - you can just about see it in this view warning the bus to turn (which it will, to go past the University halls by the station)

That's sensors on the bridges - I'm suggesting the HGVs themselves should have intelligent sensors as an early stage towards the industry's long term goal of autonomous trucking.   Say radar/lidar mounted on the cab roof looking back to measure the envelope of the trailer and forward to see what it's about to hit.  Might also help with other obstructions such as overhanging trees, petrol station canopies etc.

 

We've had overheight sensors here on ECML bridge 102 over the A505 for decades but that doesn't stop it getting bashed as drivers ignore signs, despite their flashing lights.

[petethemole]

16 minutes ago, Talltim said:

That road is named a little ironically

That bit of the road was originally part of Swaythling High Road, which extended to the junction visible beyond the bridge, where Wide Lane turned left towards Eastleigh.  Road layout changes saw part of High Road turned into a new dual carriageway, Stoneham Way, leaving this bit of it isolated, so it was added to Wide Lane.

 

6 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

That's sensors on the bridges

 

The sensors are on posts in advance of the junctions on either side, and displays indicate the safe route to avoid the bridge.

 

[F-UnitMad]

21 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

Basically there is no excuse for a truck hitting a low bridge maximum height of vehicle should be displayed in cab and driver should know this anyway. The height and warning signs are displayed very clearly on the bridges and also on signs approaching said bridge. The reason for these incedents is human ie.  the driver there is no excuse for them  and those concerned should have their HGV licence revoked and sued for neglijence by owners of the bridge.If you drive an HGV you should be a responsible person who takes careful note of road and associated areas.Thank god the majority are well trained responsible men and women as they do an arduous job and certainly do not want to have unnersacery problems.

Whilst agreeing with the overall sentiment that there is no excuse, it is a bit drastic to be sued for negligence. I certainly expected a big fine when I hit the bridge I did, thought I might lose my licence, and also did lose that particular job, but as I related back in this thread, it was a bridge I knew all about having gone that way twice a week for two years. It was failing to note that morning the different height sign, in the dark, on an otherwise identical trailer to all the others, that did for me.

The local court that dealt with my case took such circumstances into account, along with the full cooperation of the company I was working for. To have been sued personally for the costs to NR would've been a debt impossible for me to pay. I got a £100 fine & 3 points. It took me several months to get back into truck driving, lesson learned.

But perhaps I shouldn't have been given the chance? Maybe a quick lynching from a nearby lamp post would suffice? I'm sure it's what some people would like to see happen.

[F-UnitMad]

5 hours ago, Hobby said:

@F-UnitMad misread it, then, apologies... 

 

Just out of interest when you were driving how do those "bridge height" signs work from the lorry driver's point of view? Do you take them as gospel, so if your lorry is 2.9m tall and the sign says 3.0m would you go through or would you allow some sort of "extra" clearance? (Following on from Colin's post above yours).

I for one didn't chance it when clearances were tight, within 2 or 3 inches. In the incident I was involved in above, usual clearance was 6 inches - a 14ft 3inch bridge, and 4.2m (13'9") trailer. Until the day it was swapped for a 4.5m (14'9") trailer.

[Wickham Green too]

4 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

A fully-laden tipper needs to draw forward if it's to discharge fully, unless it's got a very short body.

So you interlock it so it can't go faster than 'crawl' with the body raised.

[rab]

Wasn't sure whether to put this here or in the Dawlish thread 

but, here we go again:

 

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/pleas-alternative-train-route-after-5856000

[PhilJ W]

7 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Putting the height on display in the cab and getting the signs right is a good start, and it's all very well for a satnav to tell you to take a higher route in the first place.  But in this day and age with driverless car technology getting quite advanced, isn't it possible to fit some sort of sensor to the top of the trailer and to at least signal a warning to the the driver or even to apply the brakes?

Automatic braking on a rail vehicle is OK as it is guided by the rails but on a road vehicle it could be extremely dangerous especially if the vehicle is turning.

[SamThomas]

12 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Automatic braking on a rail vehicle is OK as it is guided by the rails but on a road vehicle it could be extremely dangerous especially if the vehicle is turning.

Indeed - the last company i worked for had a system that applied the brakes HARD when it detected "something" in the drivers field of vision before he reacted - that "something" could be a bird or a bit of litter.

Unfortunatly, the telematics recorded "harsh braking" (because it could not tell the difference between the auto system & the drivers right foot) & that gauranteed a "talk" with a driver trainer.

 

No wonder most drivers turned it off.

[corneliuslundie]

Machynlleth seems to be back to normal.

Jonathan

[Michael Hodgson]

39 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Automatic braking on a rail vehicle is OK as it is guided by the rails but on a road vehicle it could be extremely dangerous especially if the vehicle is turning.

Lots of problems, but they have to solve these if they are going to get autonomous vehciles working safely