RMweb Premium petethemole Posted October 28, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 28, 2021 Romsey again today: https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/19678784.greatbridge-road-romsey-closed-bridge-hit-vehicle/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium rab Posted October 28, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 28, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, petethemole said: Post deleted, deemed to be in poor taste. Edited October 28, 2021 by rab Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium rab Posted October 28, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 28, 2021 (edited) 21 minutes ago, SamThomas said: What a silly comment on a serious subject. 21 minutes ago, SamThomas said: Sorry, post deleted. Please del from your reply also. Edited October 28, 2021 by rab Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2251 Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 (edited) On 26/10/2021 at 22:31, phil-b259 said: They do! However just as your motor vehicle insurance company does not publish the full details of everybodys claim in public - the same is true of commercial vehicle insurers. The only time it becomes a public matter is if the courts have to get involved (i.e. the Insurance company is refusing to pay and legal action has to be entered into. However it has been made ABUNDANTLY CLEAR the Courts several times over that the process is fair and attempts to question the payment of the NR bill (which includes compensation it has to pay TOCs for infrastructure problems plus the direct repair & inspection costs of its own staff / contractors) by motor vehicle insurers will be kicked out! In the Plymouth case, the lorry was NOT OWNED OR OPERATED BY TESCO and likewise the driver was not a Tesco employee! Like most supermarkets its lorry operations are a contracted out job and thus what company logo / advertising is painted on the side of a means nothing in terms of financial liability. Indeed. I would urge anyone seriously interested in this point who has not already done so to read these two decisions, the first in the Court of Appeal, the second of Mr Justice Akenhead, before commenting further: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/644.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2015/1175.html Edited October 28, 2021 by 2251 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamThomas Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 1 hour ago, rab said: Sorry, post deleted. Please del from your reply also. Don't seem to be able to delete - post now hidden anyway. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejstubbs Posted November 1, 2021 Share Posted November 1, 2021 https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/pictures-show-wrecked-bm-lorry-25342567 Not the bridge on King's Place in Perth that usually gets hit IIRC - the one in this case, on Tay Street, is 1ft higher. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium boxbrownie Posted November 1, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 1, 2021 2 hours ago, ejstubbs said: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/pictures-show-wrecked-bm-lorry-25342567 Not the bridge on King's Place in Perth that usually gets hit IIRC - the one in this case, on Tay Street, is 1ft higher. Well hardly visible with all the warning hatching and big warning circle 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green too Posted November 1, 2021 Share Posted November 1, 2021 1 hour ago, boxbrownie said: Well hardly visible with all the warning hatching and big warning circle Yep ............. it's so conspicuous, I think the bridge should have seen the lorry coming ! 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted November 1, 2021 Share Posted November 1, 2021 8 hours ago, ejstubbs said: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/pictures-show-wrecked-bm-lorry-25342567 Not the bridge on King's Place in Perth that usually gets hit IIRC - the one in this case, on Tay Street, is 1ft higher. Still not high enough... Double deck trailer, 17" wheels, probably 15ft6in high - at least when it left the yard that morning. And the driver clatters a bridge that is significantly too low . I really do despair at what sort of truck drivers are out there these days. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green too Posted November 1, 2021 Share Posted November 1, 2021 2 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said: ....... I really do despair at what sort of truck drivers are out there these days. It's probably Boris standing in for a European driver who couldn't be tempted across. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium rab Posted November 1, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 1, 2021 B&M - Badly Mashed product. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted November 2, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 2, 2021 12 hours ago, Wickham Green too said: Yep ............. it's so conspicuous, I think the bridge should have seen the lorry coming ! And ducked! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
37114 Posted November 2, 2021 Share Posted November 2, 2021 12 hours ago, F-UnitMad said: Still not high enough... Double deck trailer, 17" wheels, probably 15ft6in high - at least when it left the yard that morning. And the driver clatters a bridge that is significantly too low . I really do despair at what sort of truck drivers are out there these days. Based on the current driver market I doubt the driver of this trailer will be out of work for long. No excuse but the tractor unit is a subcontractors so imagine the driver has been been pulling lower trailers for the last however long. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium boxbrownie Posted November 2, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 2, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, 37114 said: Based on the current driver market I doubt the driver of this trailer will be out of work for long. No excuse but the tractor unit is a subcontractors so imagine the driver has been been pulling lower trailers for the last however long. As you say though, no excuse…….I’d been driving in a seventy limit for an hour then got nicked doing seventy mph five seconds after entering a thirty limit*…….and he is a professional. All said it was an accident, a careless accident. *a hypothetical situation Edited November 2, 2021 by boxbrownie 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dagworth Posted November 16, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 16, 2021 (edited) UK campaign aims to cut number of lorries hitting railway bridges https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/16/lorries-hitting-railway-bridges-uk-wise-up-size-up-campaign Edited November 16, 2021 by Dagworth 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted November 16, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 16, 2021 14 minutes ago, Dagworth said: UK campaign aims to cut number of lorries hitting railway bridges https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/16/lorries-hitting-railway-bridges-uk-wise-up-size-up-campaign Sir Peter Hendy's remarks don't quite square up, particularly in the light of the recent discussion here re. liability and insurance: "Bridge strikes [...] drain public funds, which should be used on upgrading and improving our network." "Network Rail looks to recover the entire repair and delay costs from the driver’s employer". 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Rowsley17D Posted November 16, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 16, 2021 27 minutes ago, Compound2632 said: Sir Peter Hendy's remarks don't quite square up, particularly in the light of the recent discussion here re. liability and insurance: "Bridge strikes [...] drain public funds, which should be used on upgrading and improving our network." "Network Rail looks to recover the entire repair and delay costs from the driver’s employer". I suppose there could be instances of lack of insurance, which are rare where HGVs are concerned, and the company or owner-driver goes bust as a result. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcm@gwr Posted November 16, 2021 Share Posted November 16, 2021 59 minutes ago, Compound2632 said: Sir Peter Hendy's remarks don't quite square up, particularly in the light of the recent discussion here re. liability and insurance: "Bridge strikes [...] drain public funds, which should be used on upgrading and improving our network." "Network Rail looks to recover the entire repair and delay costs from the driver’s employer". You might be able to recover the costs financially, but you've still used up man hours that could have been better used elsewhere on the network, doing those improvements and upgrades. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green too Posted November 16, 2021 Share Posted November 16, 2021 2 hours ago, jcm@gwr said: You might be able to recover the costs financially, ...... Would that just cover the cost of repairs - or would it include compensation to the Operating Companies ? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted November 16, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 16, 2021 9 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said: Would that just cover the cost of repairs - or would it include compensation to the Operating Companies ? As discussed quite recently just upthread, it includes the penalty NR pays to the TOCs for non-availability of service. If I've understood correctly, that can easily be the largest proportion of the amount for which the culprit's insurer is billed. Unfortunately, I don't think it extends to compensation for you and I, the ordinary passenger whose journey is disrupted - but I may be wrong. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green too Posted November 16, 2021 Share Posted November 16, 2021 Well, if the ordinary passenger's journey is disrupted for over an hour he or she is entitled to compensation from someone - and that certainly shouldn't have to come from the TOC's pocket. [ Though Mr/Mrs average ordinary passenger wouldn't understand that the bridge didn't actually belong to the TOC.] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnb Posted November 16, 2021 Share Posted November 16, 2021 (edited) As I understand things, passangers claim for any delay from their relevant TOC. Then there is a system whereby the TOC then if appropriate claims from NR. I presume then NR looks at the claim(s) and decides whether they are liable for the delay, if not then presumably it gets charged to the culprit. Must be quite an office somewhere sorting all this. Edited November 16, 2021 by johnb typo 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
37114 Posted November 16, 2021 Share Posted November 16, 2021 Judging by the G&WSR blogs, their bridge at Broadway has been hit a number of times and the driver has left the scene without reporting it. Assuming the same applies for Network Rail then I imagine that is what Peter Hendy means re public funds. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dagworth Posted April 2, 2022 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 2, 2022 Poster seen at motorway services. Apologies for it being sideways, iPhone photo! Andi 8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PhilJ W Posted April 2, 2022 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 2, 2022 Here's the poster from the Network Rail site. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now