|
Another bridge!
|
Another bridge!
|
Another bridge!
On 05/05/16 09:43, Recliner wrote:
I think the only solution is to have a sturdy steel beam, painted in luminous paint, a few metres before the bridge (and obviously mounted so that, even if hit, no force is transferred to the bridge parapets). The beam might be a few cm below the bridge, but there might also be a hanging fringe below that so it's right in the driver's eye line. The only solution is ruinous punitive damages plus criminal charges levelled against the driver. If a bridge strike cost their insurers £50000 and the driver 6 points, I be the standard of reading would shoot up overnight. |
Another bridge!
On 05/05/16 10:18, Clive Page wrote:
On 05/05/2016 09:14, d wrote: Looking at the signs they've already got I'm not sure what more they could do other than have overheight flashing warning lights. But then idiots ignore flashing lights at level crossings so... I agree, it seems impossible to not notice. Shouldn't drivers who miss signs such as this be required to take another driving test (which I understand now includes an element that tests one's ability to notice hazards on the road) and also an eyesight test before being allowed to continue? Just the knowledge that this would be the result of a bridge bash might be enough to make drivers of high vehicles just a little bit more careful. No - 6 points on license. That would soon stop their carefree attitude and propensity to buy cheap non-truck grade GPS satnavs. |
Another bridge!
In article ,
(Tim Watts) wrote: On 05/05/16 10:18, Clive Page wrote: On 05/05/2016 09:14, d wrote: Looking at the signs they've already got I'm not sure what more they could do other than have overheight flashing warning lights. But then idiots ignore flashing lights at level crossings so... I agree, it seems impossible to not notice. Shouldn't drivers who miss signs such as this be required to take another driving test (which I understand now includes an element that tests one's ability to notice hazards on the road) and also an eyesight test before being allowed to continue? Just the knowledge that this would be the result of a bridge bash might be enough to make drivers of high vehicles just a little bit more careful. No - 6 points on license. That would soon stop their carefree attitude and propensity to buy cheap non-truck grade GPS satnavs. Not enough. They should be disqualified at least and made to re-take tests. These are professional drivers who are not fit and proper people to be on the roads if they cannot handle their large vehicles safely. They should also be charged with endangering passengers on the railway and sent to jail if that is what they have done. I can't understand why the worst level crossing cases are never charged with that when that is what the idiots are doing. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Another bridge!
|
Another bridge!
On 05/05/16 10:23, Tim Watts wrote:
On 05/05/16 10:18, Clive Page wrote: On 05/05/2016 09:14, d wrote: I agree, it seems impossible to not notice. Shouldn't drivers who miss signs such as this be required to take another driving test (which I understand now includes an element that tests one's ability to notice hazards on the road) and also an eyesight test before being allowed to continue? Just the knowledge that this would be the result of a bridge bash might be enough to make drivers of high vehicles just a little bit more careful. No - 6 points on license. That would soon stop their carefree attitude and propensity to buy cheap non-truck grade GPS satnavs. No 11 points on license. That really would make them think. |
Another bridge!
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 09:12:50 on Thu, 5 May 2016, d remarked: I think the only solution is to have a sturdy steel beam, painted in luminous paint, a few metres before the bridge (and obviously mounted so that, even if hit, no force is transferred to the bridge parapets). The beam might be a few cm below the bridge, but there might also be a hanging fringe below that so it's right in the driver's eye line. Well he failed to spot the pretty obvious warning signs on the bridge so I doubt this particular Einstein would have seen a painted beam either. Are we sure he ignored the signs, rather than forgot (or didn't properly know) the height of his vehicle. Forgetting what you are driving is just about the only reason one of the fairly regular double-decker bus bashes happens. Either way it's a major failure to meet the standard of driving expected of people driving such large vehicles. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Another bridge!
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
... In message , at 09:12:50 on Thu, 5 May 2016, d remarked: I think the only solution is to have a sturdy steel beam, painted in luminous paint, a few metres before the bridge (and obviously mounted so that, even if hit, no force is transferred to the bridge parapets). The beam might be a few cm below the bridge, but there might also be a hanging fringe below that so it's right in the driver's eye line. Well he failed to spot the pretty obvious warning signs on the bridge so I doubt this particular Einstein would have seen a painted beam either. Are we sure he ignored the signs, rather than forgot (or didn't properly know) the height of his vehicle. Forgetting what you are driving is just about the only reason one of the fairly regular double-decker bus bashes happens. It's a shipping container that hit the bridge, so the driver may well have been caught out by the size of that. Another solution for fixed height vehicles would be to mandate the fitting of warning devices to the vehicles themsleves; I saw a very effective radar system in use on a coach some years ago. However, this would be harder to put into practise for vehicles like this one that can carry a variable height load. -- DAS |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk