gismorail Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 He was more than likely a foreign driver ......... their tend to just go down any lane and sod the results .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 ...both power cars required repairs, and went by road ....how ironic.... "Trucker" is an American expression, which personally I don't like or use. "Lorry" is the old British word, but the lorries of today are a world away from the old British lorries of years ago (which is also why there aren't any new British lorries now) & they tend to be called Trucks in the industry - by Manufacturers and Companies alike. Therefore, I am a Truck Driver. In the Railway industry, a truck/lorry driver is called a Motor Driver, to easily distinguish them from a Train Driver. Talking of trucks and trains, as a modeller of US-outline railroads, what I call 'Trucks', UK modellers will call 'Bogies'. Why you named a rail component after extraneous nostril matter is beyond me.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gismorail Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 As a 'Trucker' or 'Truck Driver' ( or as has become the normal in this world of lazy speech 'Drive' ) I am a ' Professional Haulage Operative' otherwise referred to by transport planners as 'Steering Wheel Attendants' and do not rely on a sat nav alone but have the amazing power to read a ' Truckers Road Atlas' which helps when planning a route. Simple really and very basic but that's not in most peoples work ethic in todays high tech work place. !!!!!! Old gits get it done ......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted March 11, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 11, 2015 He was more than likely a foreign driver ......... their tend to just go down any lane and sod the results .... Is that another guess? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted March 11, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 11, 2015 I know this bridge really well - how on earth he managed to attempt driving down it in a large lorry I don't know. Its obvious as you approach and get onto the bridge that the turn the other side is very narrow and very sharp and totally unsuitable for a large vehicle Yes, we should condemn the driver. If he (or she) has such a lack of awareness that they attempted to try driving over this section of road, despite the evidence in front of their eyes, then clearly they shouldn't hold a license. While you have the luxury of local knowledge its fair to say the lorry driver didn't. Thus the key questions for me is (1) What signage was present on the A4 indicating this road might not be the best choice and (2) to what extent was the driver relying on a car Sat Nav (SatNav's specically tailored for lorries will route the driver away from unsuitable roads rather than actively sending them down there). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Did I actually say it was an excuse? That the driver wasn't to blame?? Of course he was - he got himself into a difficult situation and had the nightmare of making it much worse.... and I bet he isn't driving a Stobart truck anymore, either.Not exactly but the suggestion was there that "we" were "lynching" him and that he deserved our sympathy in some way. To me it doesn't matter if it is a truck driver or a simple motorist or even a motorcyclist they all have responsibility for their vehicles. If any motorist causes an accident it most certainly could be avoided. In this case it seems by not taking that route in the first place. An excuse of I couldn't turn round in the space available or the wall was in the way or any such is simply not acceptable. I actually expect lorry drivers to be one above the mere motorist - they are so called professional drivers. Some of the lane changing antics and lets use the motorway to race each other, or follow so close to the nearest vehicle they would stand no chance of stopping, that I regularly witness certainly questions the term. Of course we could blame it all on the foreign drivers (there certainly seems to be more foreign lorries on our roads) and I'll accept that driving a left-hand drive lorry on our roads when the only language is obscure and not English making road direction a big problem, will be somewhat challenging but again it is not an excuse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bodmin16 Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I suggest that the root of the problem is that the railways go back beyond the Victorians in some cases further and the road system goes back even further than that. Neither were built for the 21st century and the demands of modern transport. Unfortunately this is compounded by modern technology such as sat navs which don't always (if at all) recognise the conflicts between modern transportation and an ancient and at times bodged road and rail systems. It only takes a moments in attention or loss of concentration and then you have an incident such as this. I'm sure the driver didn't go out with the intention of knocking down a wall, however if he had been speeding or on the phone then that would be a different matter for consideration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 While you have the luxury of local knowledge its fair to say the lorry driver didn't. Thus the key questions for me is (1) What signage was present on the A4 indicating this road might not be the best choice and (2) to what extent was the driver relying on a car Sat Nav (SatNav's specically tailored for lorries will route the driver away from unsuitable roads rather than actively sending them down there). The report linked in the first post says A pair of road signs located just south of the A4 junction warn vehicle drivers of a hump back bridge and double bends but there were no weight or width restriction signs. As for satnav - that was purely supposition, there is no indication whether the driver was using satnav or not - although the probability is quite high we don't actually know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dagworth Posted March 12, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 12, 2015 it was dark. It wasn't The accident with the lorry happened at 17:21. Sunset in London (further EAST and thus earlier) for the 22nd of february 2015 was 17:28 http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/uk/london?month=2&year=2015 If it was dark then it's a pretty good camera to have taken such a clear photo of the debris between the accident happening on the bridge and the train hitting the debris ten minutes later... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted March 12, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 12, 2015 As a 'Trucker' or 'Truck Driver' ( or as has become the normal in this world of lazy speech 'Drive' ) I am a ' Professional Haulage Operative' otherwise referred to by transport planners as 'Steering Wheel Attendants' and do not rely on a sat nav alone but have the amazing power to read a ' Truckers Road Atlas' which helps when planning a route. Simple really and very basic but that's not in most peoples work ethic in todays high tech work place. !!!!!! Old gits get it done ......... And that's the nub of this issue and similar occurrences. There are experienced drivers and inexperienced drivers. I have a low bridge near where I live and the instances of high vehicles having to turn round have increased in direct proportion to the availability of sat navs. No longer do some (most?) truck drivers look at the the very visible road signs warning of a low bridge and altenative route. It used to be one per month or so, now it's 3-4 per week that have to turn round - and it doesn't help that it's not a particularly wide road and places to reverse and turn round inevitably create long queues of traffic. I'm not condemning truck drivers, I'm just commenting on the reliance upon gadgets instead of the mk1 eyeball. Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted March 12, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 12, 2015 The report linked in the first post says Indeed - but please note it says there were no width or weight restrictions signed. While you can argue that warnings of a hump backed bridge and double bends signs plus the width of the road should have meant something to the driver its worth remebering that such signs are not unknown on plenty of decent quality A roads in the country and as such do not in themselves mean that said road is deffinately unsuitable for lorries. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 It wasn't (dark) Again, missed my point entirely.... my reference to dark was to do with a lack of lamp posts for the driver to be strung up from. Whether it was dark or not is really immaterial, since as Kenton reminds us all vehicles have headlights fitted. It does have more relevance when reversing, since a lot of reverse lights are only fit for indicating the vehicle is going backwards, rather than illluminating the way. I actually expect lorry drivers to be one above the mere motorist - they are so called professional drivers....Kenton you & me both, although being human & despite regular assessment such as what I had last week there will be times my driving is less than perfect. But for a whole load of reasons - beyond the scope of this thread & beyond the tarring of the majority by the actions of some - such as a severe shortage of Drivers, there are now not just more Foreign trucks on our roads, but also foreign drivers in British trucks, & many more inexperienced Truck Drivers out there than at any other time since WW2, I dare say.For instance, when shunting trailers at our yard, I have had to reverse some visiting Driver's trucks on to loading docks because they couldn't do it - in one case on a Wednesday night, because the driver had only passed his test the previous Friday. As any car driver can appreciate, passing the test is one thing; driving "for real" is quite another. Back when I passed my Class 1, there was no way you could get a job like that, & I had to spend 2 years at a Company proving myself on smaller vehicles before being allowed in a big one, & even then only local deliveries at first. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jamie92208 Posted March 12, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 12, 2015 Again, missed my point entirely.... my reference to dark was to do with a lack of lamp posts for the driver to be strung up from. Whether it was dark or not is really immaterial, since as Kenton reminds us all vehicles have headlights fitted. It does have more relevance when reversing, since a lot of reverse lights are only fit for indicating the vehicle is going backwards, rather than illluminating the way. Kenton you & me both, although being human & despite regular assessment such as what I had last week there will be times my driving is less than perfect. But for a whole load of reasons - beyond the scope of this thread & beyond the tarring of the majority by the actions of some - such as a severe shortage of Drivers, there are now not just more Foreign trucks on our roads, but also foreign drivers in British trucks, & many more inexperienced Truck Drivers out there than at any other time since WW2, I dare say. For instance, when shunting trailers at our yard, I have had to reverse some visiting Driver's trucks on to loading docks because they couldn't do it - in one case on a Wednesday night, because the driver had only passed his test the previous Friday. As any car driver can appreciate, passing the test is one thing; driving "for real" is quite another. Back when I passed my Class 1, there was no way you could get a job like that, & I had to spend 2 years at a Company proving myself on smaller vehicles before being allowed in a big one, & even then only local deliveries at first. Having a son who has recently passed his Class 1, I agree with this. However he has 15 years experience of driving and manouvering large agricultural equipment and plant and certainly managed to do a three point turn in an eight legger with drawbar trailer outside our house to the amzement of his mother. with no problem. Getting back to the original thread it does seem that the occupants of the train have been VERY lucky indeed. At Polmont, IIRC, a cows' pelvis derailed the DBSO so all that masonry could have had disastorous results. Jamie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted March 12, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 12, 2015 While you have the luxury of local knowledge its fair to say the lorry driver didn't. Thus the key questions for me is (1) What signage was present on the A4 indicating this road might not be the best choice and (2) to what extent was the driver relying on a car Sat Nav (SatNav's specically tailored for lorries will route the driver away from unsuitable roads rather than actively sending them down there). It's not always like that Phil (and might not have been here for all we know). First of all you hardly have to turn off the A4 to see that it is a narrow road so do we sign for idiots who can't see an artic-lorry length ahead of them? You can't see there are humpback bridges and you can't see the double bends - so logical to sign for them. Now as far as satnav's are concerned at the top of the road where I live we have a narrow lane and it is in fact accessed - if you are coming from a certain direction - via another narrow lane and yet satnavs seem to perpetually route lorries which are far too big that way, presumably in order to avoid the main road into the town and the distance is a bit shorter. Again it isn't signed as a narrow lane (in either case) but turning into either of them it is immediately obvious to all but a blind man that both are narrow and that they get narrower. Yet again do we plaster every little backroad with signs pointing out the obvious to those too dim to see beyond their own noses? In this instance the lorry turned into a lane which was immediately obviously narrow and which had signs to indicate other features which were not immediately visible. And what is more the lane which the lorry turned onto doesn't obviously go anywhere - it is just a country lane leading to more country lanes and it doesn't provide a quicker route to anywhere which isn't available by staying on the A4 (although the lorry might have been delivering to a residential address for all I know). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (although the lorry might have been delivering to a residential address for all I know). Or a farm...? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D1059 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 While you have the luxury of local knowledge its fair to say the lorry driver didn't. Thus the key questions for me is (1) What signage was present on the A4 indicating this road might not be the best choice and (2) to what extent was the driver relying on a car Sat Nav (SatNav's specically tailored for lorries will route the driver away from unsuitable roads rather than actively sending them down there). You don't need local knowledge to know that you're in trouble the moment you turn off the A4 in this case. You can see how narrow and sharp it is as soon as you get onto the bridge in a car. Sitting 6-8ft up in a lorry cab it should be even more obvious that you shouldn't attempt to go over the bridge, let alone try the following corner. As the stationmaster says, the approach to the bridge from the A4 is quite suitable to reverse back down if you have a spotter. Once you are into the corner after it, there is no way forward and no good way back Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Just to clarify though - it wasn't the railway bridge that was too narrow. He traversed that, it was 40m later on round a couple of corners when he got to the canal bridge that the problems started. The canal bridge appears (having 'walked' the route courtesy of street view) to be narrower that the railway bridge. It was at this point the driver reversed back up the road and hit the railway bridge, so I don't think it is as obvious as you state and canal bridge is not visible the moment you turn off the A4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 12, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted March 12, 2015 Disregarding what the driver should have done in the first place, what was his correct course of action once he discovered he was stuck, blocking the road? Call for police assistance? Find a local resident to help him? Try to squeeze across the canal bridge? Assuming the vehicle complies with the normal road traffic dimensions, and there are no signs warning of a narrow bridge, weight restrictions, or banning HGVs, it ought to fit, surely? Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 12, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted March 12, 2015 (although the lorry might have been delivering to a residential address for all I know). At teatime on a Sunday? An HGV pizza delivery? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad_Hatter Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 When the lorry knocked to brickwork over both the lorry driver, and the car driver most likely uttered some choice words first and then grabbed the phone and dialled 999,, as in both cases most likely they never realised these "If bridge is hit" plates were on the bridge, and what they were for any way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davefrk Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Near us is a very old bridge which is restricted to 6' wide vehicles, with a number of signs on the road pointing this out but we used to see HGVs heading down the hill to it regularly. They had to reverse about half a mile to a farm gate to turn with damage to the farm gate and fence. Someone, possibly the farmer, put up a great big sign saying DON'T BELIEVE YER SATNAV, VERY NARROW BRIDGE AHEAD.... No more oversize vehicles trying to reverse. The council took it down and put up another 'narrow bridge' sign. Yes there was a wagon trying to reverse a few weeks ago. Blxxdy Council.... Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted March 12, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 12, 2015 Assuming the vehicle complies with the normal road traffic dimensions, and there are no signs warning of a narrow bridge, weight restrictions, or banning HGVs, it ought to fit, surely? Not as far as I'm aware. Responsibility ultimately lies with the driver, signs warn of absolute prohibitions but it shouldn't be assumed that if there's nothing explicitly prohibited everything within non-oversize limits is OK. There's a huge mileage of ordinary single track road unsuitable for large vehicles without any explicit signage. Considering the wide range of permissable vehicles of varying sizes, ditto with roads, it would be impractical to cover them all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londontram Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 At teatime on a Sunday? An HGV pizza delivery? As a lorry driver my working week would often start on a Sunday lunch time so you could be at your first drop first thing Monday morning. One frequent load would be flat pack stable fittings like galvanized doors and dividing walls to sables delivered all over the country and have had to deliver to stables which were sometimes in the back and beyond in the highlands of Scotland or in the Breacon beacons or such like. though I must say it only took a few seconds to make a quick call to ask the people what the clearances were like in the area I was delivering too. Very often I could do the drop on the Sunday and be on my way to the next call first thing the next day. Steve (HGV, DSA. ADI. and ex Police driving instructor) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 as in both cases most likely they never realised these "If bridge is hit" plates were on the bridge, and what they were for any way. What makes you think there was one there out of interest? I'm not sure i've noticed them on an overbridge before (though others up-thread have) - the image of the bridge from google on the OP doesn't show one? A quick look at our local bridges down this way via Google suggests they don't have anything like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 What makes you think there was one there out of interest? I'm not sure i've noticed them on an overbridge before (though others up-thread have) - the image of the bridge from google on the OP doesn't show one? A quick look at our local bridges down this way via Google suggests they don't have anything like that. Agreed. The usual "If this bridge is hit..." signs are for when you go under them, not over. Someone has posted the pertinent question, though, for all the armchair experts. Having got himself in the mire; how would he get out? Only those with actual experience of reversing a 45ft trailer blind side need reply. If he'd carried on forwards, & got stuck on the canal bridge or the road bends, the story wouldn't even have come up on this Forum. Unless whatever might have been sent to tow him out had hit the railway bridge itself, of course..... At least the now Unemployed driver doesn't have any deaths on his conscience as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.