The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.
There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).
Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.
The bridge deck itself is so badly damaged that a new structure may be required - which will take months to fit. Had a train (particularly one of the many freights that ply the route) attempted to cross the damaged deck then it would have been derailed and the deck most likely completely collapsed.
And all because the driver either (1) did not take the time to check on the height of their load (as the law requires) or (2) wasn't driving with due care and attention (i.e. reading the roadsigns and stopping before hitting the structure).
That looks very bad. Network Rail must be making a large claim against the vehicle insurers. I'd like to be a fly on the wall at the meeting between Rutland Council and Biffa as mentioned in this report: https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/ ... e-9282872/
I picked up an interesting and fairly unique one today... A skip lorry (there's a theme developing here), one of the really top heavy looking ones with the box halfway to the sky, crashed into a pipe bridge over the access road to a water treatment works, destroying electrical equipment and a sewage main. I honestly do not know how these people pass their HGV test.
Wish I could give more info, but I'm not sure how much the firm would appreciate that. Needless to say the driver/contractor probably won't be welcomed back.
The bridge deck itself is so badly damaged that a new structure may be required - which will take months to fit. Had a train (particularly one of the many freights that ply the route) attempted to cross the damaged deck then it would have been derailed and the deck most likely completely collapsed.
And all because the driver either (1) did not take the time to check on the height of their load (as the law requires) or (2) wasn't driving with due care and attention (i.e. reading the roadsigns and stopping before hitting the structure).
The state of the regulatory sign (which appears to have not ever been cleaned) suggests the local highway authority will be under the microscope as well.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Big Nick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 17:17
That looks very bad. Network Rail must be making a large claim against the vehicle insurers. I'd like to be a fly on the wall at the meeting between Rutland Council and Biffa as mentioned in this report:
The TC will also be involved, they are taking a hard stance on bridge strikes with loss of repute for the traffic manager of the company and possible loss of licence to operate trucks.
Big Nick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 17:17
That looks very bad. Network Rail must be making a large claim against the vehicle insurers. I'd like to be a fly on the wall at the meeting between Rutland Council and Biffa as mentioned in this report:
The TC will also be involved, they are taking a hard stance on bridge strikes with loss of repute for the traffic manager of the company and possible loss of licence to operate trucks.
About time to!
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
The bridge is in fact made up of two 'decks'. That on the Down line (trains to Peterborough) is a writer off and is having to be replaced (The other line is salvageable).
Fortunately NR have located some surplus girders at Brockenhurst on the south coast which they can use to rig up a temporary solution to get the line open again (target date is 21st).
However that is still very much a temporary solution and in due course I expect the whole bridge to be replaced - largely paid for by Biffa's insurers....
DB617 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 17:25
I picked up an interesting and fairly unique one today... A skip lorry (there's a theme developing here), one of the really top heavy looking ones with the box halfway to the sky, crashed into a pipe bridge over the access road to a water treatment works, destroying electrical equipment and a sewage main. I honestly do not know how these people pass their HGV test.
Wish I could give more info, but I'm not sure how much the firm would appreciate that. Needless to say the driver/contractor probably won't be welcomed back.
It sounds very similar to the stories that friends of mine who are either HGV drivers or work with them about agency/temp drivers.
My HGV driving mate had an issue with his truck (big oil leak). He put down the leak mats, put the required notices on the truck and made it clear to those that needed to know that the truck was unusable. Apparently while he was away an agency driver decided he'd ignore all the tags/notices and use the truck anyway. Got about 10 miles down the road before the engine grenaded itself on the A19
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 19:02
The state of the regulatory sign (which appears to have not ever been cleaned) suggests the local highway authority will be under the microscope as well.
That is a good point, but it may be cancelled out by the existence of multiple warning signs ahead of the bridge (2 on one side and 3 on the other) and the hi-vis marking on the bridge framework. There's also height warning signs as you leave the A1 onto the A6121, from Stamford town, from the A47 at Morcott, and on every approach at Wireless Hill roundabout.
There's even this old beauty in North Luffenham https://goo.gl/maps/iWhMHp3yvzC6YN1R7
From any direction the driver must have passed at least 3 warning signs. I'm no expert but I'd say that Rutland Council have covered themselves well.
It would be interesting to learn what plans Rutland Highways had for inspecting and cleaning the overhead signs or if it was for Network Rail to maintain.
DB617 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 17:25
I picked up an interesting and fairly unique one today... A skip lorry (there's a theme developing here), one of the really top heavy looking ones with the box halfway to the sky, crashed into a pipe bridge over the access road to a water treatment works, destroying electrical equipment and a sewage main. I honestly do not know how these people pass their HGV test.
Wish I could give more info, but I'm not sure how much the firm would appreciate that. Needless to say the driver/contractor probably won't be welcomed back.
Very easily, bridge height clearance is not actually tested. The only REAL way to test is would be to have test routes that deliberately set out to test the drivers "height awareness" and direct the drive towards an unsafe route to see if he/she noticed. That is not how tests work. I am (was) a very height aware HGV driver, when you drive a variety of different vehicles at different heights then a significant part of pre journey checks was all about understanding the height of the vehicle and planning the route accordingly. Not all drivers bring the same level of awareness to the table and that is why these accidents happen. Bridge strikes are all about human behaviour and the ability of the driver to be really aware "in real time" of where he/she is driving. Mistakes are made, which result in bridge strikes, there are many other work related process's where individuals fail but where the consequences are less well publicized. but those mistakes happen every day of the week.
I am NOT in anyway trying to down play the consequences of a bridge strike. But many people make many mistakes everyday in their working lives which result in varying levels of outcome. so there is a question to be asked, does the outcome of failure relate to the reward for people who do the job. I would suggest that we are happy for this to be the case for, say, airline pilots, but we are clearly less happy for this to be the case for other professions where many "potentially high risk activities" are carried out be people on minimum (or little more than) wage. Where minimum wage is actually far from what is required to live life at even the most basic of standards.
DB617 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 17:25
I picked up an interesting and fairly unique one today... A skip lorry (there's a theme developing here), one of the really top heavy looking ones with the box halfway to the sky, crashed into a pipe bridge over the access road to a water treatment works, destroying electrical equipment and a sewage main. I honestly do not know how these people pass their HGV test.
Wish I could give more info, but I'm not sure how much the firm would appreciate that. Needless to say the driver/contractor probably won't be welcomed back.
I am NOT in anyway trying to down play the consequences of a bridge strike. But many people make many mistakes everyday in their working lives which result in varying levels of outcome. so there is a question to be asked, does the outcome of failure relate to the reward for people who do the job. I would suggest that we are happy for this to be the case for, say, airline pilots, but we are clearly less happy for this to be the case for other professions where many "potentially high risk activities" are carried out be people on minimum (or little more than) wage. Where minimum wage is actually far from what is required to live life at even the most basic of standards.
Agreed. The risk to others from HGV drivers' mistakes is well known. Same for bus drivers. But their pay is paltry and frankly an insult.
Many businesses spend a lot of time soul searching - why is it we just cannot achieve safety in our company? Well, pay peanuts, get monkeys. You're either employing only the people who are desperate enough to take your insulting offer, or you're starving your employees to the point that they become jaded or simply too stressed to be able to perform. Then you put them behind the wheel of 44 tonnes on roads that resemble an episode of Dukes of Hazzard most of the time and expect 100% safety otherwise infrastructure gets damaged and people die.
The numbers in there given there are interesting:
Year 2017/18 – 2,039 strikes
Year 2018/19 – 1,926 strikes
Year 2019/20 – 1,720 strikes
Year 2020/21 – 1,624 strikes
Year 2021/22 – 1,833 strikes
On the assumption that these will be proportional to the number of lorries on the road it's a proxy for the impact of Covid etc. on moving goods around the country.
It is hardly surprising that the Lower Downs Bridge is the second-most bashed bridge in Britain. It's clearance is 7'9" (2.35 m). Legislation does not require that vehicles under 3 metres have to carry a height notification in the driver's cab (4 metres for vehicles from abroad).
The numbers in there given there are interesting:
Year 2017/18 – 2,039 strikes
Year 2018/19 – 1,926 strikes
Year 2019/20 – 1,720 strikes
Year 2020/21 – 1,624 strikes
Year 2021/22 – 1,833 strikes
On the assumption that these will be proportional to the number of lorries on the road it's a proxy for the impact of Covid etc. on moving goods around the country.
It's clearly not directly proportional given the decline that was happening prior to 2020, but the rebound clearly is part of that effect.
But overall, what it shows is that it's average of 5 per day against Network Rail bridges (it does include vehicles striking the parapets of bridges over railways, but previous stats have shown those to be a minority). I do wonder what the total is if non-Network Rail railways, roads, canals and other bridges & other over and under road structures are included?
Al__S wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 11:29
But overall, what it shows is that it's average of 5 per day against Network Rail bridges (it does include vehicles striking the parapets of bridges over railways, but previous stats have shown those to be a minority). I do wonder what the total is if non-Network Rail railways, roads, canals and other bridges & other over and under road structures are included?
But that's in the middle of a pedestrianised area!
No vehicle should be there (not even my bike between 10 and 4 unless I'm pushing it.)
Further fact checking shows this to be a 2013 event!
B1040 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 15:30
But that's in the middle of a pedestrianised area!
No vehicle should be there (not even my bike between 10 and 4 unless I'm pushing it.)
Further fact checking shows this to be a 2013 event!
One possible excuse is that he was doing a delivery before 10:00 when he had a whoopsy and he was now awaiting the arrival of a surveyor to see whether or not it was safe for him to move his vehicle ... except I was not aware that Primark stocked bread.
