"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

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

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

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?

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?

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

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.