|
Another bridge!
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. Off the top of my head, I can't think there's really a decent alternative route for high vehicles even vaguely nearby - e.g. travelling westwards once they come through Forest Hill it's already sort of too late. Which is why any tall lorry that's had its route planned properly shouldn't be coming this way, but there's obviously plenty for which that doesn't apply. |
Another bridge!
On 04/05/2016 17:32, 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. Off the top of my head, I can't think there's really a decent alternative route for high vehicles even vaguely nearby - e.g. travelling westwards once they come through Forest Hill it's already sort of too late. Which is why any tall lorry that's had its route planned properly shouldn't be coming this way, but there's obviously plenty for which that doesn't apply. Up the Croxted Road and back down the Norwood road would do it. Clearances of 15'6" and more that way. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Another bridge!
On 04/05/2016 17:46, Graeme Wall wrote: On 04/05/2016 17:32, 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. Off the top of my head, I can't think there's really a decent alternative route for high vehicles even vaguely nearby - e.g. travelling westwards once they come through Forest Hill it's already sort of too late. Which is why any tall lorry that's had its route planned properly shouldn't be coming this way, but there's obviously plenty for which that doesn't apply. Up the Croxted Road and back down the Norwood road would do it. Clearances of 15'6" and more that way. The left hand turn from Croxted Rd into Norwood Rd looks pretty iffy to me for an artic, and Croxted Rd itself isn't ideal. Lowering the road under the problem bridge would be one way to deal with the matter, but I suspect that TPTB don't really want to encourage larger lorries to come this way. |
Another bridge!
|
Another bridge!
|
Another bridge!
On Wed, 4 May 2016 17:54:05 +0100, Mizter T
wrote: On 04/05/2016 17:46, Graeme Wall wrote: On 04/05/2016 17:32, 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. Off the top of my head, I can't think there's really a decent alternative route for high vehicles even vaguely nearby - e.g. travelling westwards once they come through Forest Hill it's already sort of too late. Which is why any tall lorry that's had its route planned properly shouldn't be coming this way, but there's obviously plenty for which that doesn't apply. Up the Croxted Road and back down the Norwood road would do it. Clearances of 15'6" and more that way. I would expect most big stuff is non-local traffic whose safe routes should be avoiding the area rather than just the bridge. What's the betting a fair number of car satnavs will be found in the offending vehicles ? The left hand turn from Croxted Rd into Norwood Rd looks pretty iffy to me for an artic, and Croxted Rd itself isn't ideal. Lowering the road under the problem bridge would be one way to deal with the matter, Not necessarily a practical option if there's something under the surface that can't be easily moved. but I suspect that TPTB don't really want to encourage larger lorries to come this way. |
Another bridge!
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... -- Spud |
Another bridge!
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. |
Another bridge!
|
Another bridge!
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. -- Spud |
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 |
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!
|
Another bridge!
|
Another bridge!
|
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!
|
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 |
Another bridge!
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
... 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). Exactly. The various "hanging is too good for 'em" pundits here need to consider that the driver is dealing with a combination of the deck height of the trailer, the height of the container, and quite possibility the tractor unit may affect the height as well. Nobody is questioning the fact that the lorry driver is responsible for making sure it will all fit, but given the opportunities for mistakes to happen it's a wonder there aren't more incidents of this nature. For example, it's possible that the driver passed under the same bridge with a smaller container in one direction, and then swapped it for a taller container - or even a taller trailer/container combination - for the return journey. What happened is comparable with a signaller setting the wrong route for a train and then the driver accepting that route. Surely that *never* happens, does it? There but for the Grace of God, etc. etc. -- DAS |
Another bridge!
On Fri, 06 May 2016 08:17:29 -0600
Arthur Conan Doyle wrote: 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 Doesn't just happen to road vehicles it would seem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agKwYR8mzzM -- Spud |
Another bridge!
In message , at 15:59:31 on Fri, 6 May
2016, D A Stocks remarked: For example, it's possible that the driver passed under the same bridge with a smaller container in one direction, and then swapped it for a taller container - or even a taller trailer/container combination - for the return journey. One of the Ely bridge bashes a couple of years ago was like that - a local tradesman (plumber I think) had been driving to and fro several times a day for years without incident, and then someone bought him a new van which was very slightly taller... Then there was this chap (not visible) driving into Ely who apparently got under the first half of the underpass by the level crossing, then chickened out at the second. The police and local Railtrack people (visible) helped him let his tyres down at which point he made it through the second half. I have no idea if they did him for obstruction, but as it was a PCSO I don't think they can ticket someone for that. http://www.perry.co.uk/images/ocado-ely.jpg -- Roland Perry |
Another bridge!
On 04/05/2016 18:21, wrote:
In article , (Mizter T) wrote: On 04/05/2016 17:46, Graeme Wall wrote: On 04/05/2016 17:32, 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. Off the top of my head, I can't think there's really a decent alternative route for high vehicles even vaguely nearby - e.g. travelling westwards once they come through Forest Hill it's already sort of too late. Which is why any tall lorry that's had its route planned properly shouldn't be coming this way, but there's obviously plenty for which that doesn't apply. Up the Croxted Road and back down the Norwood road would do it. Clearances of 15'6" and more that way. The left hand turn from Croxted Rd into Norwood Rd looks pretty iffy to me for an artic, and Croxted Rd itself isn't ideal. Lowering the road under the problem bridge would be one way to deal with the matter, but I suspect that TPTB don't really want to encourage larger lorries to come this way. The fundamental problem is that it's the South Circular Road which exists only as a series of sign posts. It should be signed as local roads only and lorries should be forced to use the M25. Because there aren't anything like enough lorries on the M25, are there? |
Another bridge!
On Thu, 05 May 2016 05:49:21 -0500, wrote:
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. Why aren't vehicles fitted with electronic gadgets to warn the driver of low bridges? |
Another bridge!
In article ,
(Optimist) wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2016 05:49:21 -0500, wrote: 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. Why aren't vehicles fitted with electronic gadgets to warn the driver of low bridges? Good question! -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Another bridge!
On 2016-05-28 10:47:06 +0000, said:
In article , (Optimist) wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2016 05:49:21 -0500, wrote: 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. Why aren't vehicles fitted with electronic gadgets to warn the driver of low bridges? Good question! I was behind a truck yesterday as it was about to enter an underpass under the A12. The driver slowed to a halt and hopped out to have a good look first. It was quite tight. E. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:32 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk