RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted March 12, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 12, 2015 The matter of warnings is quite interesting - and it doesn't just apply with lorry drivers but that is the one I've come across most examples of. We used to regularly get 'bashes' on a certain bridge at Westbury and there were more signs than you could shake a stick at approaching it. In Reading there are two bridges on Cow Lane - approaching from either direction there is height detection kit which starts warning lights instructing the driver about the bridges and the fact that he shouldn't go that way (there are opportunities to turn off before reaching the bridges whichever side you approach from) yet only a few weeks ago there was an artic carefully reversing out because he'd finally realised that the signs weren't there just for fun. The signs have greatly reduced - if not as good as eliminated bridge bashes there and one bridge has in any case been raised (the other will follow later this year) but it is still amazing the extent to which signs are ignored. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Miles Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 So who pays for this. Is it the lorry insurance or me (and other tax payers?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I would imagine you, and other insurance customers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D1059 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. Accepted - you can't see the canal bridge until you are round the corner, but it should have been patently obvious that the road was unsuitable for HGVs before getting that far. The right/left turn just over the railway bridge is tight, even in a car. You have to be careful of oncoming traffic appearing blind with very little warning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asmay2002 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 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. It is not unknown for trucks which have got "stuck" to be oxy-torched into small pieces to remove them... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foulounoux Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 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 Sorry but I diasagree that its immediately obvious as you come off the A4 that the railway bridge is narrow and sharp. The junction with the A4 actually gives the perception of a wider lane. The railway bridge is on a straight approach It's only after the bridge that you have a double bend and it's only a 30 degree deviation. I had to check on Google to verify my memory The lane is used by lorries to deliver to farms I know due to the number of times I had one pull out in front of me from that lane as I headed back to Calne That doesn't excuse the drivers actions in reversing but I'm not sure it's as cut and dried as others have made out and I'd prefer to wait for the official report before making a judgement as to culpability Colin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gismorail Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 No probably true ......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caradoc Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 It is interesting to compare the route knowledge requirements for road and rail transport; For road, even for professional drivers of large and heavy vehicles, absolutely none. For rail, full training and regular refreshing for every route every Driver works over. And if a train Driver does not sign a route they do not drive trains over it, no matter what the circumstances, whereas a lorry Driver can just go wherever they want and if they get stuck, make an extremely dangerous manouvre to extricate themselves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D1059 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Sorry but I diasagree that its immediately obvious as you come off the A4 that the railway bridge is narrow and sharp. The junction with the A4 actually gives the perception of a wider lane. The railway bridge is on a straight approach It's only after the bridge that you have a double bend and it's only a 30 degree deviation. I had to check on Google to verify my memory The lane is used by lorries to deliver to farms I know due to the number of times I had one pull out in front of me from that lane as I headed back to Calne That doesn't excuse the drivers actions in reversing but I'm not sure it's as cut and dried as others have made out and I'd prefer to wait for the official report before making a judgement as to culpability Colin The Google streetview of the turn after the railway bridge is misleading - the wide angle distorts the perspective somewhat and it was also filmed in midsummer - visibility is better than that without all the undergrowth in full leaf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewartingram Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 It is interesting to compare the route knowledge requirements for road and rail transport; For road, even for professional drivers of large and heavy vehicles, absolutely none. For rail, full training and regular refreshing for every route every Driver works over. And if a train Driver does not sign a route they do not drive trains over it, no matter what the circumstances, whereas a lorry Driver can just go wherever they want and if they get stuck, make an extremely dangerous manouvre to extricate themselves. Don't forget Traction Knowledge signing as well. Stewart Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dagworth Posted March 13, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 13, 2015 It is interesting to compare the route knowledge requirements for road and rail transport; For road, even for professional drivers of large and heavy vehicles, absolutely none. For rail, full training and regular refreshing for every route every Driver works over. And if a train Driver does not sign a route they do not drive trains over it, no matter what the circumstances, whereas a lorry Driver can just go wherever they want and if they get stuck, make an extremely dangerous manouvre to extricate themselves. Lorries don't take a mile to stop! Andi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 It is interesting to compare the route knowledge requirements for road and rail transport; For road, even for professional drivers of large and heavy vehicles, absolutely none.What do you think the Highway Code is??There IS regular training, assessment etc. Heard of the Driver's CPC? No? Never mind, this thread has dealt in sweeping generalisations right from the Title onwards.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad_Hatter Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 What is this then and hope the link will work.https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.991861,-3.207394,3a,37.5y,75.57h,62.71t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5sNTpl7-nVL0b5sP867QDQ!2e0 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Another one... "The lorry driver got lost, couldn't go any further and just sat there all night blocking the road as it was dark and he had no help. Hope they throw the book at him."(oh and it's "reverse" please.) The lorry driver tried to back up, in the dark with no assistance? Hope they throw the book at him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Oh how I love arm chair commercial drivers. Some here think the driver should have reversed when he saw the bridge and probably want him lynched for it. Others are criticising him for reversing at all and probably want him lynched for it. As F-United agrees, the driver is clearly at fault. He got himself into a mess by not planning his route well enough (you can get modules for sat navs that map out commercial friendly routes). However, the fact that there are diametrically opposed viewpoints from people on this forum moaning about the accident suggests that they in fact haven't got much of a clue either. This could have been a really serious accident and had this been one of my vehicles I would be treating it seriously. However, what this doesn't need is a bunch of little hitlers on here commenting from their armchairs about something they know SFA about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Oh come on man. That is such a total distortion of what he is saying (with apologies to F United for jumping into your corner of the ring). No one is disputing who is to blame, are they? But your un-qualified investigation into the subject is hardly useful. Perhaps until you are qualified in either rail or road investigations you should keep your mitts off your keyboard. and that is some kind of excuse? Presumably the lorry had lights and they were actually switched on. In single vehicle accidents it is pretty difficult to shrug off the blame. To drive any vehicle you should be competent, alert and in full control of the vehicle maintained for road use. About the only excuse here would be that the parapet just fell off as I was passing - possibly due to poor maintenance of the parapet potentially made structurally unsound by a different event. Otherwise it is the driver's fault. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Oh come on man. That is such a total distortion of what he is saying (with apologies to F United for jumping into your corner of the ring). No one is disputing who is to blame, are they? But your un-qualified investigation into the subject is hardly useful. Perhaps until you are qualified in either rail or road investigations you should keep your mitts off your keyboard. As someone who knows nothing of who I am or what experiences in life I have. Perhaps you would be best keeping your remarks to general condemnation and refrain from unsubstantiated invective. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted March 13, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 13, 2015 However, what this doesn't need is a bunch of little hitlers on here commenting from their armchairs about something they know SFA about. And at that point I stopped reading. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 What is this then and hope the link will work.https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.991861,-3.207394,3a,37.5y,75.57h,62.71t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5sNTpl7-nVL0b5sP867QDQ!2e0 Thanks - wonder if they are only in specific area's or specific bridges where there's been a problem (noting the metal post at that one) then? I've checked as many local to me as I can, and haven't found one on any of them yet...here's a random bunch... https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.731286,-3.521865,3a,75y,185.65h,78.67t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sURMLeIpSWO0i5lNk33PUzQ!2e0 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.692427,-3.503774,3a,75y,61.94h,73.11t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sViKIK8RDY3P8R71qM_PhBg!2e0 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.705009,-3.522142,3a,75y,17.32h,61.96t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sA_UA6KXNESeRmNbrpphYVQ!2e0 The incident bridge doesn't appear to have one on the google images: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.408884,-1.562047,3a,75y,134.41h,60.88t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sNJ3mblNKWxJH5QWefYsGFA!2e0 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.