cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Oops...bet he had some explaining to do

Community Veteran
Posts: 1,770
Thanks: 33
Fixes: 1
Registered: 08-10-2010

Oops...bet he had some explaining to do

Old picture I came across whilst clicking through web
9 REPLIES
rongtw
Seasoned Hero
Posts: 6,336
Thanks: 1,155
Fixes: 11
Registered: 01-12-2010

Re: Oops...bet he had some explaining to do

well that didnt do what it said on the tin  Cheesy
Asus ROG Hero Vii Z97 , Intel i5 4690k ,ROG Asus Strix 1070,
samsung 850evo 250gig , WD black 2 TB . Asus Phoebus sound ,
16 gig Avexir ram 2400 , water cooling Corsair H100i gtx ,
Corsair 750HXI Psu , Phanteks Enthoo pro case .
Community Veteran
Posts: 5,345
Thanks: 609
Registered: 23-09-2010

Re: Oops...bet he had some explaining to do

We had an identical looking bridge where I used to live. But it was a lot lower. So low they even dipped the road beneath it to increase the clearance.
Despite all that lorries getting stuck under it was a common occurrence.
That must have had a lot to do with the road cutting across a corner so to speak and avoiding a busy shopping area.
Community Veteran
Posts: 3,380
Thanks: 2
Registered: 18-01-2013

Re: Oops...bet he had some explaining to do

lol
This happened last year just outside our industrial estate - that bridge it hit has the M1 running over it.
alanf
Aspiring Pro
Posts: 1,931
Thanks: 77
Fixes: 1
Registered: 17-10-2007

Re: Oops...bet he had some explaining to do

I wonder what criminal and civil penalties owners and drivers of these lorries (and double-decker buses) face. As I commuter I often experienced severe disruption to train journeys caused by this sort of thing. If damages had to be paid not only for any repairs to the bridge but for the disruption caused they might be more careful. As I understand it after collisions the rail service stops until an engineer can reach the site and inspect the damage. Especially in remote locations It can therefore take a couple of hours for the service to resume.
There were over 1700 incidents involving UK rail bridges last year. Some bridges were hit up to 20 times in the year.
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/3563.aspx
Community Veteran
Posts: 16,848
Thanks: 1,135
Fixes: 13
Registered: 06-11-2007

Re: Oops...bet he had some explaining to do

Surely, it is not only the driver`s responsibility, to know the height of his vehicle, but also the bridge owner`s responsibility to ensure the bridge remains safe for it`s purpose...
Driver`s change vehicles often... even one who drives a HGV or Double Decker bus,... invariably changes into a car to drive to and from work,.. and may well use the route "privately", so lapses are inevitable...  how many times have you driven down a road on a daily basis, then needed to change the route for ( say ) going to the dentist, and completely driven past the turning....
As for bridge owners... Network Rail, have the technology to install height measuring equipment, and display boards on approaches to bridges.. ( I know of at least two in my area ).. .. If a vehicle is too high to clear underneath, it automatically flashes up a warning, and a diversion notice... if the driver ignores that, then it can only be "his fault"...
All bridges should have this technology as a safeguard.. and.. it would also reduce, or almost eliminate, disruption and delay through collisions of this kind.
Community Veteran
Posts: 13,923
Thanks: 515
Fixes: 7
Registered: 01-08-2007

Re: Oops...bet he had some explaining to do

I think notwork fail are too busy spending money revanmping perfectly good platforms and station buildings to worry about low bridges with cracked or crumbling supports  Crazy
Personally i feel that the vehicles themselves should have some sort of warning system for things to avoid - like a GPS that deliberately warns the drivers of routes not to take. There are lorry GPS's out there on ebay but they're not compulsory for some idiotic reason.
I need a new signature... i'm bored of the old one!
Community Veteran
Posts: 16,848
Thanks: 1,135
Fixes: 13
Registered: 06-11-2007

Re: Oops...bet he had some explaining to do

Ah so... the invaluable GPS navigation system.... not compulsory to use... so not a certainty it will warn the driver .... system failed....  Cry
Community Veteran
Posts: 13,923
Thanks: 515
Fixes: 7
Registered: 01-08-2007

Re: Oops...bet he had some explaining to do

I know - stupid isn't it.
An alternative would be a laser scanner using an infra red beam that will pickup low bridges that are too high for the vehicle but even fitted to the bridge or vehicle if the vehicle has got too close to set it off then while saving both bridge and vehicle, it's going to cause a massive tailback of traffic. Another dudd idea.
The real problem is that people are stupid and make mistakes. Until we force large vehicles to carry these systems it will continue to happen.
I need a new signature... i'm bored of the old one!
Community Veteran
Posts: 1,770
Thanks: 33
Fixes: 1
Registered: 08-10-2010

Re: Oops...bet he had some explaining to do

I'm a bus driver, and one of the bridges I have to pass under is marked 14'3"/4.3M.  I was given a bus one day to use, and assuming that my employers would take this height restriction into account when allocating a vehicle, I set off. When I got near I stopped to check the height of my bus.  It was marked at 14'3"/4.34M.  So one vehicle height WOULD go under and one vehicle height EXCEEDED the maximum height allowed ( though would almost definitely go under).
I stopped, made sure the automatic voice recorder App was on and phoned for advice.  They seemed a bit peeved that I even bothered and told me so too - on the phone. What they didn't realise was that I had brought traffic to a standstill whilst I phoned them - and a police officer was stood there listening while I made the call!
He was not impressed with them.  Grin Grin