Bridge bashing

[Coryton]

 

Some forces however seem to like to have the car readily visible so that the traffic actually slows down, rather than getting lots of fines.

 

 

Which - as with high-visibility automatic speed cameras - is the right approach if you take the view that speeding is only dangerous where there's a speed trap.

 

A fine from a hidden speed trap doesn't improve safety in the short term...but if drivers know that their speed could be monitored anywhere then in the long term t could.

 

(Edited quote to make it clearer what I was referring to)

Edited December 15, 2017 by Coryton

[APOLLO]

Driving needs the the same as state of mind as my kids are taught at karate - situational awareness.

 

Whether you are walking down the street, driving, having a drink in a bar, what ever, where ever - be aware of what is going on around you. That is not to say you live in a permanent state of DEFCON 1, it's just all about awareness and common sense - simple skills that unfortunately many folks these days simply do not have.

 

Brit15

[royaloak]

If you do the IAM test, you get taught that anything on the roads is potentially a hazard, & should be regarded as such. Anything could happen. The driver could lose control & swerve at you. His brakes could fail. Especially if it's a slow lorry, another vehicle could try to overtake it from behind, and steer into your path. If you treat it as a hazard waiting to happen, you are likely to be that much more able to react.

I have done the IAM advanced commercial test and classing every lorry as a hazard is stupid, everything you have written above could apply to every other vehicle on the road so why arent they all classed as a hazard on the test?

[Fat Controller]

It's not only railways that are affected by bridge bashes:-

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/maidstone/news/alan-austen-sentence-waste-of-breath-157023/

[Coryton]

I have done the IAM advanced commercial test and classing every lorry as a hazard is stupid, everything you have written above could apply to every other vehicle on the road so why arent they all classed as a hazard on the test?

 

Presumably because like most tests you pass by giving the answers they want, whether they are "correct" or not.

[royaloak]

Presumably because like most tests you pass by giving the answers they want, whether they are "correct" or not.

Unfortunately you are probably correct.

 

Maybe thats where i keep going wrong, whenever anyone asks me a question I answer that question honestly and truthfully, quite often they dont like that answer!

Edited December 15, 2017 by royaloak

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

Since we are talking bridge bashing and with only one apparent post about it, did anyone else notice that the initial impact on the M20 incident took place on what used to be the hard shoulder and the bridge, apparently an accommodation bridge ie likely to be lightly constructed, was also built as a curve in which the original lanes would have a higher clearance. Is this yet another unintended consequence? It is accepted that the lorry might well have been overheight even for an outside lane but how many of these bridges had the lorry passed under before the impact?

 

As far as I am aware there are no height restrictions on motorway bridges due to them being all built to an agreed maximum height that was considered ample at the time. It must be ample as the frequent lorry carried Eurostar units used this very motorway. One wonders what would have happened with this hard shoulder conversion to a running lane would have affected these very high loads.

[dibber25]

For a while during the 1970s I lived close to the bridge over Chertsey Lane, Staines. As I had an interest in trains, and a camera, I was asked by the local residents to record the various bridge strikes to help their campaign for a pedestrian tunnel (which has never happened). The headroom was about 13ft 3in at the time but it had progressively lost 3in every time the road was resurfaced. This was one of the worst incidents that I photographed. The jib of the crane has swung round and taken out some of the brickwork on the left-side pier. A 25mph TSR was put in place. A night-time strike from the opposite direction peeled the metal lower flange off the girder and resulted in several new layers of metal being riveted in place. The last time I looked, a few years ago, that repair was still exactly the same. More recently, after the establishment of Thorpe Park, the bridge was hit by buses taking kids to the park, so elaborate fenders have been built across the road ahead of the bridge. At first, one of these had a serrated edge which would have done horrific damage to anything and anyone that hit it. Someone saw sense and torched off the serrations before they could do any harm. (CJL)

 

To expand a little further on this, given the posts above, My Dad was a driving instructor at the time and always referred to HGV drivers as 'the knights of the road'. The bridge strikes at the time were usually either buses from farther afield (the  regular vehicles were low-height RLHs) or trucks carrying civil engineer's equipment. ( A low bridge is automatically vulnerable and they are normally low because its impossible or prohibitively costly to make them any higher or increase the clearance. On the stretch of railway in question the line has just come over the Thames on a low bridge, and Chertsey Lane's low bridge was followed by three level crossings before Egham station was reached. One of those crossings has been closed but the other two remain, causing appalling traffic congestion. If you can divert via the low bridge, it's often worth doing so but that makes the traffic there even heavier. In the old days it was on the route to Weymann's at Addlestone (bus builders). Vehicles from far away operators, returning to the works for attention, would be among the users who failed to observe the bridge's meagre height warnings. At least they were heading to the right place to get fixed! The bridge had no warning chevrons and only the wooden painted sign visible just behind the crane jib. There were old-style 'low bridge' signs further back from the bridge but the old-style road signs were not adequate for the traffic volume and speeds of the 1970s. A bridge strike would make an interesting cameo on a layout. (CJL)

Edited December 15, 2017 by dibber25

[Coryton]

Unfortunately you are probably correct.

 

Maybe thats where i keep going wrong, whenever anyone asks me a question I answer that question honestly and truthfully, quite often they dont like that answer!

 

Sadly, you would make a very bad politician in that case.

[Fat Controller]

Since we are talking bridge bashing and with only one apparent post about it, did anyone else notice that the initial impact on the M20 incident took place on what used to be the hard shoulder and the bridge, apparently an accommodation bridge ie likely to be lightly constructed, was also built as a curve in which the original lanes would have a higher clearance. Is this yet another unintended consequence? It is accepted that the lorry might well have been overheight even for an outside lane but how many of these bridges had the lorry passed under before the impact?

 

As far as I am aware there are no height restrictions on motorway bridges due to them being all built to an agreed maximum height that was considered ample at the time. It must be ample as the frequent lorry carried Eurostar units used this very motorway. One wonders what would have happened with this hard shoulder conversion to a running lane would have affected these very high loads.

I don't believe this hard shoulder has yet become a running carriageway; according to the report of evidence given in court yesterday, the driver had apparently heard a bang as he passed under the preceding bridge, and so may have been pulling over to inspect his vehicle.

[TheSignalEngineer]

50mph for a lorry (road and type dependent) may not be illegal although you do say over 50.

 

http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/changes-and-answers/new-higher-speed-limits-for-lorries-in-england-and-wales

 

 

At the time the lorry speed was still 40mph for the type of road. When we tried it using a concealed camera in the 30mph zone through the village the highest we got for a lorry was 48mph. SPADS on the pedestrian crossing were an almost daily occurrence. Were the police interested? Answers on a postage stamp please using less than 3 letters.

Edited December 17, 2017 by TheSignalEngineer

[chriswright03]

You never said when it was so I included that just for info.  However, if it was these days there is very little chance you would get a Police Officer doing speed detection.  It would be a man with a van and the chances of getting the local or Roads Policing involved is less than minimal.  That is not because they don't care it is because there isn't enough of them and the workload they have leaves them stretched beyond belief.

 

Yet another thread that could go down the road of politics if we are not careful but budgets have been cut beyond the bone by the previous Home Secretary who she would have us believe she now runs the Country.

 

This subject was actually discussed on a Facebook group for Lincolnshire Police Past and Present (I have been retired over 20 years) and the Police of today are well aware of the Public Opinion but sadly can only do what they are allowed and they would tell you who is to blame.

 

Just for the record it isn't just lorry drivers who exceed the speed limit before we alienate another group on here.

[APOLLO]

Thick Yanks - lots of 'em !!

 

 

Brit15

[kevinlms]

Thick Yanks - lots of 'em !!

 

 

Brit15

Seen that many times, before and just as funny each time! A lot of insurance claims denied!

 

Two stand out as real dills. The one that follows another truck that hit the bridge and yep hits it himself - two for the price of one!

The other is of course the last one, who firstly avoids the bridge, then reverses back and takes on the bridge and loses.

 

The website could atherwise known as, I didn't need that air conditioner any way!

[LMS2968]

Credit where it's due: many of the drivers did manage to get their vehicle through.

 

Most of their vehicle, anyway.

[bimble]

No need for that, we just go and watch a few of idiots driving HGVs round the Peak District. 60mph+ downhill on narrow single carriageway roads is common, as are holes in the walls. Some years ago I asked the police why they didn't get booked the reply from the Inspector was that it was too dangerous for his men to go on to the road to do speed checks.

 

Last time I drove through the Peaks I was high impressed/terrified at the speed some of the Lomas Distribution hgvs were driving... honestly felt like I was holding them up...

[JZ]

There's this in Bath, Jew's Lane, which has regular strikes, as you can see by the state of the warning boards.

https://goo.gl/maps/6x3AhbjehEq

[Griffin Road]

50mph for a lorry (road and type dependent) may not be illegal although you do say over 50.

 

http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/changes-and-answers/new-higher-speed-limits-for-lorries-in-england-and-wales

 

There is also a chance to try the Theory test on there as well but without the Hazard Perception test. Anyone brave enough to have a go and reveal their score?

 

http://theory.1driver.co.uk/driving-test-by-DSA/free-demo-test

On open ( non restricted ) parts of that road the limit is 50 mph for trucks between 7.5 t and 44 t .

( in Scotland it would still be 40 mph - another discussion ) . As you say it was over 50 as per the machine . How is it calibrated ?

 

As far as bridges are concerned I use a Truckers Road Atlas . It has height limits , width limits and weight limits marked . I don't trust any of the sat nav systems . They are generally for cars and can get you into a lot of trouble in a truck .

 

Mike b

[Coryton]

On open ( non restricted ) parts of that road the limit is 50 mph for trucks between 7.5 t and 44 t .

( in Scotland it would still be 40 mph - another discussion ) . As you say it was over 50 as per the machine . How is it calibrated ?

 

As far as bridges are concerned I use a Truckers Road Atlas . It has height limits , width limits and weight limits marked . I don't trust any of the sat nav systems . They are generally for cars and can get you into a lot of trouble in a truck .

 

Mike b

 

Going off-topic a little, bridges over rivers are trickier because of course the water level can go up or down.

 

On Lough Erne in Ireland there are useful gauges before low bridges which stick up out of the water and let you read off what the current height-above-water (air draft) is.

 

It would have been quite a useful device if only somewhere on our hire cruiser was a notice telling us how far the boat stuck up above the water (and yes, it will presumably change a little depending on size of crew and how well stocked up you are with groceries and diesel, but still...)

[RANGERS]

One major problem contributing to the shortage of UK drivers is the cost of training. I looked at putting my son through a course but the cost of the course, plus the cost of travelling/local accomodation to where it was held plus the time commitment needed to do the course (several days - a problem if you are working already and don't want to give up that job until you pass). Those things combined made it near impossible and we abandoned the idea.

 

I can't help but think the view that training is too expensive is a perception based on an incomplete picture..

 

According to one of my training colleagues, the average cost of obtaining a class 1, C+E licence for a driver with no 7.5t entitlement is circa £4000, that includes the training, medical and tests for each subsequent stage. That takes a driver from a car to the heaviest, largest and with some loads, by far the most valuable vehicles on our roads. Those roads are shared by everyones wives, kids; brothers, sisters; mums, dads, Uncle Tom Cobley and all. Their safety is dependent on the skill of that driver, what price on that? In reality, the cost of training is fairly modest.

 

However, take the cost in relation to earning capacity, and it could be argued there is a discrepancy. We all benefit from the highly competitive nature of the haulage industry, no two ways about it, it's dog eat dog, the low costs filter through to every single thing you buy in the shops and the result is driver's pay rates which nowhere near reflect the level of responsibility they carry, remember again, every road user's safety is dependent on their skill. The cost of training, which until fairly recently was viewed as being the sole responsibility of the prospective trucker, takes a significant proportion of first year earnings, something many find hard to swallow. Thankfully most larger hauliers do now accept that if they want to have a sustainable business, they have to train drivers who don't have a licence and if they want to keep them, they have to pay them a decent living, little point in having fought for work to keep their 1000 lorries on the road if there's nobody to drive them.

 

There's a perception that Eastern European drivers are taking jobs from UK drivers, the truth is there's very few here who want to drive for a living, those Europeans wouldn't be there if there were more UK nationals who wanted to drive trucks. Aside from the unsocial hours, nights out, frequently poor facilities for drivers (especially women), pressure to meet delivery schedules against the spectre of congestion, not to mention the threat of substantial fines, for instance how many of us go to work each day with the threat of a £300 fine for a relatively minor misdemeanour (failure to move the tacho mode switch to rest when taking a break).

 

When pay rates stacking shelves in supermarkets, which will pretty much guarantee you'll be in your own bed every night and don't cost you a bean if you make a mistake, are comparable with a professional trucker who will probably have paid several thousand pounds for his licence, who'd be a trucker?

[Griffin Road]

I can't help but think the view that training is too expensive is a perception based on an incomplete picture..

 

According to one of my training colleagues, the average cost of obtaining a class 1, C+E licence for a driver with no 7.5t entitlement is circa £4000, that includes the training, medical and tests for each subsequent stage. That takes a driver from a car to the heaviest, largest and with some loads, by far the most valuable vehicles on our roads. Those roads are shared by everyones wives, kids; brothers, sisters; mums, dads, Uncle Tom Cobley and all. Their safety is dependent on the skill of that driver, what price on that? In reality, the cost of training is fairly modest.

 

However, take the cost in relation to earning capacity, and it could be argued there is a discrepancy. We all benefit from the highly competitive nature of the haulage industry, no two ways about it, it's dog eat dog, the low costs filter through to every single thing you buy in the shops and the result is driver's pay rates which nowhere near reflect the level of responsibility they carry, remember again, every road user's safety is dependent on their skill. The cost of training, which until fairly recently was viewed as being the sole responsibility of the prospective trucker, takes a significant proportion of first year earnings, something many find hard to swallow. Thankfully most larger hauliers do now accept that if they want to have a sustainable business, they have to train drivers who don't have a licence and if they want to keep them, they have to pay them a decent living, little point in having fought for work to keep their 1000 lorries on the road if there's nobody to drive them.

 

There's a perception that Eastern European drivers are taking jobs from UK drivers, the truth is there's very few here who want to drive for a living, those Europeans wouldn't be there if there were more UK nationals who wanted to drive trucks. Aside from the unsocial hours, nights out, frequently poor facilities for drivers (especially women), pressure to meet delivery schedules against the spectre of congestion, not to mention the threat of substantial fines, for instance how many of us go to work each day with the threat of a £300 fine for a relatively minor misdemeanour (failure to move the tacho mode switch to rest when taking a break).

 

When pay rates stacking shelves in supermarkets, which will pretty much guarantee you'll be in your own bed every night and don't cost you a bean if you make a mistake, are comparable with a professional trucker who will probably have paid several thousand pounds for his licence, who'd be a trucker?

All too true unfortunately !

 

30 years ago to just go straight to class 1 cost near enough a £1000.

 

I still enjoy driving but the main thing missing now is unity between drivers - it's very much a case of everyone for themselves ! I will help if I can but other drivers are quite shocked .

 

Shame really .

 

Mike b

[kevinlms]

Credit where it's due: many of the drivers did manage to get their vehicle through.

 

Most of their vehicle, anyway.

I wonder if some enterprising businessman has set up a truck body/caravan repair business opposite? Money for the taking!

[RJS1977]

"I can see a lorry coming with a sign on it saying 'Low Bridge'"

"Is there anything else on the lorry?"

"Yes - a low bridge!"

[RJS1977]

When the Pendolino did the publicity run to snatch the Glasgow - London speed record, it nearly came undone by a bridge strike near Preston which occurred after the run had started.

 

Fortunately a bridge inspector happened to be in Preston at the time and managed to certify the bridge as safe before the Pendolino got there!

[newbryford]

I wonder if some enterprising businessman has set up a truck body/caravan repair business opposite? Money for the taking!

 

I once did some H&S work at a factory that built and repaired trailers.

 

Curtain siders that had encountered bridges were quickly converted into flatbeds and sold on.

 

Cheers,

Mick