Another bridge!
 

On 05/05/16 13:33, D A Stocks wrote:

It's a shipping container that hit the bridge, so the driver may well
have been caught out by the size of that.

If he was caught "off guard" he is incompetent or careless IMO. One of
his duties is to know exactly the clearance height of his vehicle.

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

Another bridge!
 

In article , (D A Stocks)
wrote:

"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.

Shipping containers are standard sizes so I don't accept not knowing the
height as an excuse. So vehicle-located warning devices would be very
practical.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Another bridge!
 

On 2016\05\05 10:12, d wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2016 08:43:26 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2016 17:32:41 +0100
Mizter T wrote:
On 04/05/2016 17:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
Couldn't see the signs, obviously…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36200939


We discussed this bridge on the South Circular (on Thurlow Park Rd in
Tulse Hill) recently, maybe it was over on utl (which I've x-posted to).

There's already extensive signage, but I guess there could always be more.

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 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. But as
you say, at least the bridge wouldn't get hit.

A diagonal beam guiding the vehicle into a sandpit might be a better
idea at some locations. Not very cycle-friendly though.

Another bridge!
 

On 05/05/2016 10:12, d wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2016 08:43:26 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2016 17:32:41 +0100
Mizter T wrote:
On 04/05/2016 17:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
Couldn't see the signs, obviously…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36200939


We discussed this bridge on the South Circular (on Thurlow Park Rd in
Tulse Hill) recently, maybe it was over on utl (which I've x-posted to).

There's already extensive signage, but I guess there could always be more.

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 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. But as
you say, at least the bridge wouldn't get hit.


A low tunnel in Sydney (I think) has a water curtain with a big no entry
sign projected on it right in front of the driver if a heigh vehicle
passes the sensor.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Another bridge!
 

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 05/05/2016 10:12, d wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2016 08:43:26 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2016 17:32:41 +0100
Mizter T wrote:
On 04/05/2016 17:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
Couldn't see the signs, obviously…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36200939


We discussed this bridge on the South Circular (on Thurlow Park Rd in
Tulse Hill) recently, maybe it was over on utl (which I've x-posted to).

There's already extensive signage, but I guess there could always be more.

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 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. But as
you say, at least the bridge wouldn't get hit.


A low tunnel in Sydney (I think) has a water curtain with a big no entry
sign projected on it right in front of the driver if a heigh vehicle
passes the sensor.

Do you mean this one that Sam Wilson posted upthread?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk9DjO-_rT8

Another bridge!
 

On 06/05/2016 08:29, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 05/05/2016 10:12, d wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2016 08:43:26 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2016 17:32:41 +0100
Mizter T wrote:
On 04/05/2016 17:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
Couldn't see the signs, obviously…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36200939


We discussed this bridge on the South Circular (on Thurlow Park Rd in
Tulse Hill) recently, maybe it was over on utl (which I've x-posted to).

There's already extensive signage, but I guess there could always be more.

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 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. But as
you say, at least the bridge wouldn't get hit.


A low tunnel in Sydney (I think) has a water curtain with a big no entry
sign projected on it right in front of the driver if a heigh vehicle
passes the sensor.

Do you mean this one that Sam Wilson posted upthread?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk9DjO-_rT8


That's it, missed Sam's post first time round as I'm playing catch up.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Another bridge!
 

In article ,
wrote:
As always: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk9DjO-_rT8

Cool! Now, why don't Network Rail try that?

It is cool. Does it work during daylight hours? Wouldn't just a
simple traffic light work as well?

--
Mike Bristow

Another bridge!
 

On 2016\05\06 10:15, Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
As always: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk9DjO-_rT8

Cool! Now, why don't Network Rail try that?

It is cool. Does it work during daylight hours? Wouldn't just a
simple traffic light work as well?

A sulphuric acid curtain would work better.

Seriously, surely the point of these crashes is that the bloke thinks
that even though the sign/detector/water curtain thinks that he's too
high for the bridge/tunnel, he thinks that he'll squeeze through with
half an inch to spare, and a lot of the time he'll be right. So no
matter how visible you make the sign, the crash will still happen. The
only way to stop them is to detect the height of vehicles and then lower
a physical gate so that the driver knows that even if he could
theoretically squeeze under the bridge, he can't get past the gate. Or
put up an electronic toll sign that tells drivers that vehicle LLxxLLL
will be fined the cost of a bridge strike even if they manage to squeeze
through.

Another bridge!
 

In message , at 13:57:00 on Fri, 6 May 2016,
Basil Jet remarked:
surely the point of these crashes is that the bloke thinks that even
though the sign/detector/water curtain thinks that he's too high for
the bridge/tunnel, he thinks that he'll squeeze through with half an
inch to spare, and a lot of the time he'll be right.

It's much more likely they just forget what they are driving (how high
etc).
--
Roland Perry

Another bridge!
 

Graeme Wall wrote:

A low tunnel in Sydney (I think) has a water curtain with a big no entry
sign projected on it right in front of the driver if a heigh vehicle
passes the sensor.

Yes, pretty cool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk9DjO-_rT8