Jump to content

Bridge bashing


Recommended Posts

On 01/09/2021 at 15:39, 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..

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

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..

You've posted that comment twice, and I did press the "agree" button the first time. 

People might pass hundreds of trucks especially on a long journey, but they'll only remember the one that had a selfish prat at the wheel, that ruins the reputation of the rest.

Once again - glad I'm out of it these days.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

Like in the UK learners have to have a qualified driver with them but also that driver must have a minimum number of years experience.

In the UK the qualified driver must have held a full license for three years

https://www.gov.uk/driving-lessons-learning-to-drive/practising-with-family-or-friends

 

Andi

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

Probably exactly the same reason that the over seventies were / are deemed to be suddenly at greater risk of / from covid .................... er - whatever reason that might be. ( I might be able to tell you in a couple of years or so.)

Over 70s, I'm well in my eighties now and drive OK as well as remembering where I'm going and where I've come from.  Also I'm fully aware of my present faculties and drive OK accordingly, licenced and all.  Never had a major prang and try and avoid such a probability.  My wife is with me on major drives, just in case and so far we've survived, so to say that we are all in the situation, driving or covid, is a bit prejudicial in todays day and age.

     Brian.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this was about the bridge bash on Ashford Hill, in Plymouth!  It was always a bit dodgy - a narrow bridge at the bottom of a steep hill, the poor driver probably couldn't stop even if he wanted to!:banghead:

     Brian

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, brianusa said:

I thought this was about the bridge bash on Ashford Hill, in Plymouth!  It was always a bit dodgy - a narrow bridge at the bottom of a steep hill, the poor driver probably couldn't stop even if he wanted to!:banghead:

     Brian

He was going up the hill when he hit it! 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Kris said:

He was going up the hill when he hit it! 

Seeing how you are much closer to the incident. It probably wouldn't have made much difference either way!:stop:

       Brian.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that there is now some talk of drivers loosing their licences if they hit bridges and are at fault. According to the article this is something being pushed by network rail. Having read around the article a little (important with all newspapers) this appears to have been pushed in November by Network rail. 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9957367/Lorry-drivers-banned-roads-hit-low-railway-bridges.html

 

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/news/network-rail-relaunches-bridge-strike-campaign-in-lincolnshire-as-new-stats-show-notorious-grantham-railway-bridges-struck-21-times-in-last-year/

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 02/09/2021 at 12:34, boxbrownie said:

If being sold in other markets of course the vehicle would have to comply with local regulations (which happens now, and has always done so) but it could be a simple as a software version in the vehicles ECU.

Out of interest currently reading  the history of Averling and Porter, the traction engine and steamroller manufactures, who had a strong export market, even then 1900s they had to produce a different boiler design to meet the German regulations, and firebox design for the South American market, nothing is new.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kris said:

I see that there is now some talk of drivers loosing their licences if they hit bridges and are at fault. According to the article this is something being pushed by network rail. Having read around the article a little (important with all newspapers) this appears to have been pushed in November by Network rail. 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9957367/Lorry-drivers-banned-roads-hit-low-railway-bridges.html

 

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/news/network-rail-relaunches-bridge-strike-campaign-in-lincolnshire-as-new-stats-show-notorious-grantham-railway-bridges-struck-21-times-in-last-year/

If you read the details NW are considering reporting drivers to the Traffic Commissioners (TC) - nothing new here - anyone can report a driver that holds a vocational licence to the TC for a traffic offence.

 

The TC may "invite" the driver to their office to discuss the reported incident.

 

At the end of the discussion the TC may revoke the vocational entitlement there & then, also may apply conditions - however, this does not effect the drivers basic licence.

 

During the discussion the drivers previous record will be taken into account.

 

All those "anti HGV drivers" (& I'm generalising here - not having a pop at Kris) need to take a step back & see how perfect they are themselves.

 

Again, I'm not condoning HGV drivers that are "less than professional" but a lot could be done to help but one things for sure - costs will go up.

Edited by SamThomas
typo
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kris said:

I see that there is now some talk of drivers loosing their licences if they hit bridges and are at fault. According to the article this is something being pushed by network rail. Having read around the article a little (important with all newspapers) this appears to have been pushed in November by Network rail. 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9957367/Lorry-drivers-banned-roads-hit-low-railway-bridges.html

 

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/news/network-rail-relaunches-bridge-strike-campaign-in-lincolnshire-as-new-stats-show-notorious-grantham-railway-bridges-struck-21-times-in-last-year/

Not so sure they will loose their licences until we get a few more newly passed drivers on the road at the moment, might be seen to actually need them! ;)

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Not so sure they will loose their licences until we get a few more newly passed drivers on the road at the moment, might be seen to actually need them! ;)

Should repeat offenders (if indeed there are any), lose their licence? It would seem a fair result if there is any. Does anyone know of drivers who are known as 'Not Again'!

 

Of course the risk of a particular bridge should be taken into account. A slight scrape in some instances, or a complete right off of the vehicle in others. What about the amount of warning signage or other reason why a mistake could occur?

We have had one RMweb member, tell us that his company swapped out to a taller trailer than his regular one, without telling him of the changes. That seems to be grossly unfair to take a licence off a driver for that.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no sympathy for the road hauliers over the shortage of drivers. They have been recruiting drivers in Eastern Europe in breach of *EU rules and the government has been turning a blind eye. Now the chickens have come home to roost. *The EU rules state that if you want to employ someone to work in a member state they must be recruited in that state were they will receive such benefits as that states minimum wage. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

We have had one RMweb member, tell us that his company swapped out to a taller trailer than his regular one, without telling him of the changes. That seems to be grossly unfair to take a licence off a driver for that.

That'll be me, then. At the end of the day it was still my mistake; I was half-expecting to lose my HGV entitlement as it was. I honestly wouldn't object if it was a licence-losing offence, especially for a repeat offender or someone who just chanced it that they might squeeze under a bridge they knew was signed lower than their truck's height.

Losing your job brings hardship enough, losing your licence would exacerbate that; what I did not think was fair was an earlier comment to sue the driver for NR's damage expenses - that really would be a financial burden too crippling to bear alongside being suddenly unemployed.

  • Like 4
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

What needs to be looked at is what went wrong and why.

 

For example if a Company plans routes or issues 'Trucker' sat navs then clearly it has done something to address bridge strikes, in the same way there may be cases where the posted height of the bridge is no longer accurate after re-surfacing.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so some bridge have been incompetently bashed.  If the current lot of HGV drivers lose their licences, we stand even loess chance of getting our groceries or our  models imported from the People Republic,  whether they are good drivers or bad.

 

As it happens I have a high regard for the skills of the vast majority of our lorry drivers.  I enjoy watching the skill with which they get an artic round some of our quaint town centre corners.  Even more so in the case of the exceptional loads that exceed the standard Construction & use Regs.   Mostly they are considerate to other road users and they show greater patience and forbearance than I could among the some of the morons in cars who really ought not to be allowed to drive so much as a wheelbarrow.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hobby said:

Agreed, that's what insurance is for. 

But often insurance is useless, when gross acts are taken when driving, for example drunk driving, when the insurance companies can and do invoke fine print exclusions.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

That'll be me, then. At the end of the day it was still my mistake; I was half-expecting to lose my HGV entitlement as it was. I honestly wouldn't object if it was a licence-losing offence, especially for a repeat offender or someone who just chanced it that they might squeeze under a bridge they knew was signed lower than their truck's height.

Losing your job brings hardship enough, losing your licence would exacerbate that; what I did not think was fair was an earlier comment to sue the driver for NR's damage expenses - that really would be a financial burden too crippling to bear alongside being suddenly unemployed.

Yes it was you, but it was up to you as to whether you wanted to name yourself again, not me!

 

I don't believe there is anything much to gain out of financially ruining ones life over a mistake, so hitting the driver, with a bill he can't possibly pay even after selling everything, does nothing. Especially since the driver definitely won't have a job to earn money, to pay even a small amount off for the damage each week.

 

There are plenty of other people who make mistakes/deliberate acts, that cost the community heaps of money each year. Much of it can never be reclaimed, but lets not divert off topic.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

But often insurance is useless, when gross acts are taken when driving, for example drunk driving, when the insurance companies can and do invoke fine print exclusions.

 

I am not sure to what extent Insurers can refuse to pay out in Third Party Motor claima.

 

They may of course sek redress from their insured but in most cases it wont be worth it.

 

They do however welch on non statutory 3rd party claims

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an HGV SatNav myself. Last Saturday it failed when on-route, a route I had not done before on roads not familier with. I resorted to Google maps & extra vigilence on my part. Due to live traffic routing I did end up on some unsuitable roads but no damage or harm done.

Luckily, the company I work for are "not on your case" every five minutes, unike some.

 

Unfortunatly, there are too many HGV drivers that simply will not look after other peoples kit - cabs that look like a new style wheelie bin, knobs pulled off switches & so on - I dread to think what they would do to a company issued SatNav unless steps were taken to make them pay via their wages** for any damage/loss.

 

It needs more care all round - NW & the Highways Authorities need to make sure that correct signage (taking into account road resurfacing/increased truck lengths ect), automatic warnings correctly calibrated, physical barriers and maybe something like those hanging poles you have in the Blackwall Tunnel. Some actual locations may need a combination or what is possible.

 

NW need to face up to their moral obligations to protecting their property from those who either make a genuine mistake or those that are irresponsible. After all, the running tracks are fenced off to prevent the terminally stupid from instant demise.

 

Human nature will always encourage some people to "chance it" - thats whay we have interlocks on washing machine & microway oven doors & so on.

 

In this technological age it should be simple to avoid, but does not appear to be so. We should be concentrating on preventing incidents rather that finger pointing after incidents. NW's proposals to "go after" errant HGV drivers personally is a typical example of corporate bullying - can you imagine the results of say, a £5m claim - a driver made bankrupt resulting in NW loosing even more money via legal fee's & bad publicity when certain newspapers "report" the story.

If NW really do want to pursue this unfeasable idea they should also apply it within their own remit when their own employees make mistakes but then lets not open one of these pictured.

 

** Not too sure if employment law allows this ?

CanOfWorms.jpg

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SamThomas said:

NW need to face up to their moral obligations to protecting their property from those who either make a genuine mistake or those that are irresponsible. After all, the running tracks are fenced off to prevent the terminally stupid from instant demise.

 

To a degree, but really just how far should we want to wrap up the world to make it idiot-proof? Is that really the sort of world anyone wants to live in? Obviously it's not one extreme or the other, no protection vs everything you could possibly imagine, but there needs to be a limit I feel.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SamThomas said:

I have an HGV SatNav myself. Last Saturday it failed when on-route, a route I had not done before on roads not familier with. I resorted to Google maps & extra vigilence on my part. Due to live traffic routing I did end up on some unsuitable roads but no damage or harm done.

Luckily, the company I work for are "not on your case" every five minutes, unike some.

 

Unfortunatly, there are too many HGV drivers that simply will not look after other peoples kit - cabs that look like a new style wheelie bin, knobs pulled off switches & so on - I dread to think what they would do to a company issued SatNav unless steps were taken to make them pay via their wages** for any damage/loss.

 

It needs more care all round - NW & the Highways Authorities need to make sure that correct signage (taking into account road resurfacing/increased truck lengths ect), automatic warnings correctly calibrated, physical barriers and maybe something like those hanging poles you have in the Blackwall Tunnel. Some actual locations may need a combination or what is possible.

 

NW need to face up to their moral obligations to protecting their property from those who either make a genuine mistake or those that are irresponsible. After all, the running tracks are fenced off to prevent the terminally stupid from instant demise.

 

Human nature will always encourage some people to "chance it" - thats whay we have interlocks on washing machine & microway oven doors & so on.

 

In this technological age it should be simple to avoid, but does not appear to be so. We should be concentrating on preventing incidents rather that finger pointing after incidents. NW's proposals to "go after" errant HGV drivers personally is a typical example of corporate bullying - can you imagine the results of say, a £5m claim - a driver made bankrupt resulting in NW loosing even more money via legal fee's & bad publicity when certain newspapers "report" the story.

If NW really do want to pursue this unfeasable idea they should also apply it within their own remit when their own employees make mistakes but then lets not open one of these pictured.

 

** Not too sure if employment law allows this ?

CanOfWorms.jpg

 

A lot of your points relate to management of Road Haulage Companies

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-54029112

 

and

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/22/two-men-guilty-of-manslaughter-over-bath-tipper-truck-crash

 

Which in these cases was woefully inadequate

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...