Bridge bashing

[F-UnitMad]

38 minutes ago, SamThomas said:

 

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.

I had a few run-ins with 'the Office' at my last place over the telematics reports, and the stupid targets they set us, like how much % of our driving time should be on cruise control. I told them I'd use cruise control at MY discretion, not some desk jockey's. 

[Jonboy]

We had the opposite issue when relocating a warehouse a couple of years back. The stock for one load was being sent to two sites a mile apart with a relatively low 4.7m bridge in between. 
We booked it accordingly with the depot and carefully checked the vehicle heights with the driver before despatching a trailer with 10 pallets for one site and 14 for the other. 

He gets to the first site and unloads, resets his truck specification satnav and promptly refuses to go to the second site as it says he won’t fit and he won’t make the long way round (circa 30 miles) and then his next collection within his hours.

 

Turned out the haulier use two heights of trailer and drivers are not allowed to reset the GPS for the lower trailers under any circumstances….frustrating was an understatement….

[lmsforever]

6 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

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.

I sympathise with you perhaps I was a over the top in my comments but you have to admit that there are drivers who cause accidents who are negligent in their driving.Sadly on the A34 last week a bad crash was typical of these people and some years ago same rd  another bad one caused by fiddling with a phone..

[Night Train]

Tesco should get their area manager down to the bridge site each day to ensure the Network Rail crew are well stocked up with sausage rolls and doughnuts. A few quid spent would do wonders for company PR.

[RJS1977]

13 hours ago, Talltim said:

Another one, in Machynlleth

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/live-a487-shut-trains-disrupted-21452079

 

 

 

 

Reminds me of this clip (apologies if I've posted it before).

 

 

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

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

Personally I'd rather take the humans and the risks. Not to the point of no safety devices but eliminating people entirely because we simply don't ever trust our fellow human beings isn't the world I want to live in, and I'll probably be unfortunate enough to live to see it (especially since the risks it intends to reduce aren't that massive).

[johnofwessex]

My view is that the biggest problem we have on the roads is the low expectation we tolerate of drivers behaviour.

 

If we expected drivers to behave in the same way we expect train drivers or commercial pilots to behave, took away for ever the licences if those that didnt and dealt harshly with those who drove without a licence or played the fool then I suggest that things might be a lot different.

[F-UnitMad]

43 minutes ago, johnofwessex said:

My view is that the biggest problem we have on the roads is the low expectation we tolerate of drivers behaviour.

 

If we expected drivers to behave in the same way we expect train drivers or commercial pilots to behave, took away for ever the licences if those that didnt and dealt harshly with those who drove without a licence or played the fool then I suggest that things might be a lot different.

Apply it across the board, though. To private car drivers as well as vocational drivers.

Have a seperate driving test & licence to tow a caravan.

Re-test drivers at aged 70.

Put speed limiters in cars, linked to transponders at the roadside so they cannot exceed whatever the speed limit for that road is.

 

Oh look, a whole squadron of pigs just flew past...... 

[johnofwessex]

To put my earlier post in perspective,

 

1. You are about 5 times more likley to be killed by a vehicle when on the pavement than die in a terrorist incident

2. There are about 600 homicides each year in the UK (Murder & Manslaughter) compared with about 1750 road deaths (IE about 3 times as many)

 

So if you play the fool in a car why dont you get the same treatment as a suspected terrorist/knife/gun offender?

 

 

[woodenhead]

15 minutes ago, johnofwessex said:

So if you play the fool in a car why don't you get the same treatment as a suspected terrorist/knife/gun offender?

 

 

Intent - unless the driver aimed the car at a victim and used it as the weapon.

[Fat Controller]

18 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Intent - unless the driver aimed the car at a victim and used it as the weapon.

Which does seem to happen more often these days.

[johnofwessex]

18 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Intent - unless the driver aimed the car at a victim and used it as the weapon.

 

I would say that the intention is there if indirectly, after all in many cases it should be obvious that what you are doing is dangerous & if it isnt then Broadmoor beckons

[TheQ]

1 hour ago, F-UnitMad said:

Apply it across the board, though. To private car drivers as well as vocational drivers.

Have a seperate driving test & licence to tow a caravan.

Re-test drivers at aged 70.

Put speed limiters in cars, linked to transponders at the roadside so they cannot exceed whatever the speed limit for that road is.

 

Oh look, a whole squadron of pigs just flew past...... 

To tow a trailer over 750kg ie a caravan you already have to do a separate test if your driving  licence was issued after.. 1st Jan 1997..

[woodenhead]

6 minutes ago, johnofwessex said:

 

I would say that the intention is there if indirectly, after all in many cases it should be obvious that what you are doing is dangerous & if it isnt then Broadmoor beckons

Semantics, a person going out with a gun or a knife with intention to do harm is very different to someone getting into a car under the influence - in the latter they have lost control of their senses in the former, they are fully aware of what it is they intend to do.

 

I don't disagree people who drive vehicles under the influence of something are a danger, but they don't set out to harm someone.  Yes there should be a punishment with a prison sentence but it's not the same as someone intending to harm another person.

[jcm@gwr]

I've had a situation where I've pretty much lost control of my car whilst on a roundabout,

it was more luck than anything else that there was no-one else around, and the car ended

up parallel to the kerb, between an entrance and an exit, even the policeman that attended

said I had been rather lucky.

It could easily have had a different outcome, at a busier time, or with pedestrians about.

The reason for the loss of control, was a rear driveshaft shearing in the middle of the bearing,

no way of inspecting it without regularly removing the bearing, or ultrasound equipment, not

yet part of an MOT! 

It was an odd sensation, firstly feeling like you've hit a patch of spilt diesel, so I steered into it,

then the back sort collapsed, I hit the brakes, nothing, grabbed the handbrake, still nothing!

Then the rear n/s wheel bounced past me, complete with drum still attached!

Now, had I killed someone, should I have been stripped of my license and imprisoned?

And no, I wasn't speeding, I wasn't in a hurry, nice day, hood down, enjoying the scenery.

[Hobby]

I always wonder why people always say retest over 70? Are those under 70 somehow much better drivers than those over 70? Perhaps there's a sudden fall-off when you hit 70 (some people on here could perhaps tell those of us under 70 if that's the case?!). If you are going to do retests then every few years (5 or 10 perhaps) is a much more sensible option than at an arbitrary age which has no real reasoning behind it except for perhaps health issues. 

 

I feel that health and sight tests done on a regular basis would be much more useful than a re-test. Age-related sight loss is a known issue, but can happen at any age, young or old, but isn't checked until you are a 70 when it's unlikely the driver would be doing as many miles per year or driving as fast...

[Michael Hodgson]

4 minutes ago, TheQ said:

To tow a trailer over 750kg ie a caravan you already have to do a separate test if your driving  licence was issued after.. 1st Jan 1997..

My driving licence is now one of these new-fangled credit card sized plastic ones that Europe insisted on,   Sadly I had to renew my traditional paper one on  reaching 70.  So as it was issued this year, does this mean I now need to take a test to tow a caravan?  I realise I would also need a towbar!

 

Pity about the old licence.  I once had to show it to an American policeman who was a bit bemused by a document headed "Trwydded Yrru" rather more prominently than the English translation.  I suppose we were even as I was surprised that there was such a thing as a black policeman in a Confederate State.

[Nick C]

26 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I don't disagree people who drive vehicles under the influence of something are a danger, but they don't set out to harm someone.  Yes there should be a punishment with a prison sentence but it's not the same as someone intending to harm another person.

Which is why specific offences exist for such scenarios - such as "causing death by dangerous driving"

[Michael Hodgson]

2 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

I feel that health and sight tests done on a regular basis would be much more useful than a re-test. Age-related sight loss is a known issue, but can happen at any age, young or old, but isn't checked until you are a 70 when it's unlikely the driver would be doing as many miles per year or driving as fast...

 

I can tell you that you don't need an eye test on reaching 70 as such.  You have to certify that you can still see straight (I think it's officially read a number plate at 75 paces or something). 

 

However if you are diagnosed with diabetes you need an eye test and it's notifiable to DVLA.

[Nick C]

 

6 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

My driving licence is now one of these new-fangled credit card sized plastic ones that Europe insisted on,   Sadly I had to renew my traditional paper one on  reaching 70.  So as it was issued this year, does this mean I now need to take a test to tow a caravan?  I realise I would also need a towbar!

 

No, it's based on when you passed your test - on the back of the card should be a table with which categories you're allowed to drive, and the dates from and to - you're looking for B+E (car + trailer) in this case.

[johnofwessex]

8 minutes ago, jcm@gwr said:

I've had a situation where I've pretty much lost control of my car whilst on a roundabout,

it was more luck than anything else that there was no-one else around, and the car ended

up parallel to the kerb, between an entrance and an exit, even the policeman that attended

said I had been rather lucky.

It could easily have had a different outcome, at a busier time, or with pedestrians about.

The reason for the loss of control, was a rear driveshaft shearing in the middle of the bearing,

no way of inspecting it without regularly removing the bearing, or ultrasound equipment, not

yet part of an MOT! 

It was an odd sensation, firstly feeling like you've hit a patch of spilt diesel, so I steered into it,

then the back sort collapsed, I hit the brakes, nothing, grabbed the handbrake, still nothing!

Then the rear n/s wheel bounced past me, complete with drum still attached!

Now, had I killed someone, should I have been stripped of my license and imprisoned?

And no, I wasn't speeding, I wasn't in a hurry, nice day, hood down, enjoying the scenery.

 

In your case however there is a clear explanation of what happened and something that even a MoT would not have identified..

 

Given that about 25% of Road Traffic Accidents don't involve another road user I suggest that these need proper investigation and in many cases to be followed by licence cancellation.

 

3 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

I can tell you that you don't need an eye test on reaching 70 as such.  You have to certify that you can still see straight (I think it's officially read a number plate at 75 paces or something). 

 

However if you are diagnosed with diabetes you need an eye test and it's notifiable to DVLA.

 

 

I would suggest that there is a clear case for a proper eye examination prior to applying for a driving licence followed by regular retests.

 

[Michael Hodgson]

One problem with some older people is Alzheimers.  If it's too bad your licence will be taken away.  However, that won't stop you going for a drive, as you forget they've taken it .....  happened to a friend of my mother's - his wife had to start hiding the car keys after he was found parked in a lay-bye unable to remember where he was going or why.  Poor chap couldn't remember who he was but hadn't forgotten how to drive.

[Reorte]

6 minutes ago, Nick C said:

No, it's based on when you passed your test - on the back of the card should be a table with which categories you're allowed to drive, and the dates from and to - you're looking for B+E (car + trailer) in this case.

 

Although double check (take a photocopy of your old licence before sending it off, although too late in this case), there have been cases of categories being dropped when they've sent out the new one.

 

That said extra training and testing for towing sounds like quite a sensible idea.

 

The odd re-test in general is probably a good thing too, maybe one a couple of years after first passing and another after twenty years or so (to try to break long-set-in bad habits but without overloading testing capacity too much).

 

Although what proportion of serious accidents are caused by people ignoring all the rules anyway? More rules won't do much about them if they're ignoring the current ones.

[Michael Hodgson]

2 minutes ago, johnofwessex said:

I would suggest that there is a clear case for a proper eye examination prior to applying for a driving licence followed by regular retests.

 

When my parents were living in Sweden in the 1970s they were able to drive on UK licences for 6 months then had to apply for a Swedish one.  As part of the Swedish test you had to have a proper medical, not just a simple eye test - they decided my mum had high blood pressure and sent her to hospital.  After a week they decided that it wasn't an impediment to driving.  They paid her Sickness Benefit for that week, even though she was neither working nor claiming any benefits.

[Michael Hodgson]

3 minutes ago, Reorte said:

The odd re-test in general is probably a good thing too, maybe one a couple of years after first passing and another after twenty years or so (to try to break long-set-in bad habits but without overloading testing capacity too much).

 

Although what proportion of serious accidents are caused by people ignoring all the rules anyway? More rules won't do much about them if they're ignoring the current ones.

Re-test won't solve that.  People know not to break the speed limit etc whilst actually taking the test.