class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743 
|
Post by class411 on Nov 9, 2020 17:55:35 GMT
I hope this is the correct place for this.
There's an article on the BBC news site about trial bridge hits.
Apparently there is one (not LU) that has been hit 25 times this year!
Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to devise a system whereby beams and photoelectric detectors placed shortly before problem bridges could activate a 'STOP TOO HIGH' signal?
Perhaps someone here knows why that simple solution would not work.
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Nov 9, 2020 18:25:24 GMT
It's worked on Albert Bridge in Middlesbrough for years.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnlinford on Nov 9, 2020 18:36:41 GMT
They already exist on many bridges in the capital and elsewhere. Unfortunately they don't help if drivers are not paying attention properly.
|
|
|
|
Post by miff on Nov 9, 2020 18:45:04 GMT
Here’s the BBC list. Only one of these sites in London. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-54871244Overheight vehicle detectors triggering illuminated signs do exist at many locations. I imagine the sensors need to be tested in some way fairly frequently otherwise how would anyone know if they’re faulty? |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Nov 9, 2020 19:20:39 GMT
There is a YouTube channel in America dedicated to a low bridge; it has flashing signs when an overhight vehicle is detected. They post about a video a month of it being hit, this continues to happen even after it was lifted a few inches!
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 9, 2020 19:27:03 GMT
Here’s the BBC list. Only one of these sites in London. Overheight vehicle detectors triggering illuminated signs do exist at many locations. Two -Tulse Hill and Wimbledon. The Tulse Hill one is on the South Circular Road. Lower Downs Road in Wimbledon is less than 8 feet high. It is festooned with overheight indicators (one ofwhich can be seen in this picture) and still manages to get hit several times a year.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2020 19:33:33 GMT
If they brought correct Sat Navs for the vehicle they are driving this would mitigate the strikes.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 9, 2020 19:47:26 GMT
I hope this is the correct place for this. There's an article on the BBC news site about trial bridge hits. Apparently there is one (not LU) that has been hit 25 times this year! Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to devise a system whereby beams and photoelectric detectors placed shortly before problem bridges could activate a 'STOP TOO HIGH' signal? Perhaps someone here knows why that simple solution would not work.
Because drivers IGNORE them. This is despite the fact that the courts have found that Network Rail can claim back the compensation it has to dish out to train operators from the haulage company (or its insurers)*
Network Rail has in fact spent a fortune in installing collision protection beams at the worst affected bridges - they do nothing to stop the lorry / bus hitting the bridge, but do mean that the railway itself can be swiftly reopened as the bridge itself will be safe**.
Such beams have to be installed where there is no chance of them falling and hitting other motorists / pedestrians - so its impractical to put them anywhere other than right at the bridge itself. Yes you could put up a set of bells on a wire or rubber flaps hung from a 16ft 6 structure (the height below which everything has to be signed) but the chances are most drivers would still ignore them.
|
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Nov 9, 2020 21:23:11 GMT
The famous 11foot8 bridge was recently raised 8", which I believe put the track at the same elevation as the level crossings either side. The bridge, well, the crash beam, still gets hit, just not as often.
Drivers routinely ignore warnings and occasionally lose their bet with physics.
People complain about the low bridges but don't even think about the cost to raise them. (11foot8 has a sewer running under the road and level crossings on the rail line within about half a mile of the bridge.... don't want to know the cost to jack it up to spec height.)
|
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Nov 9, 2020 21:53:49 GMT
I hope this is the correct place for this. There's an article on the BBC news site about trial bridge hits. Apparently there is one (not LU) that has been hit 25 times this year! Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to devise a system whereby beams and photoelectric detectors placed shortly before problem bridges could activate a 'STOP TOO HIGH' signal? Perhaps someone here knows why that simple solution would not work.
Because drivers IGNORE them. This is despite the fact that the courts have found that Network Rail can claim back the compensation it has to dish out to train operators from the haulage company (or its insurers)*
Network Rail has in fact spent a fortune in installing collision protection beams at the worst affected bridges - they do nothing to stop the lorry / bus hitting the bridge, but do mean that the railway itself can be swiftly reopened as the bridge itself will be safe**.
Such beams have to be installed where there is no chance of them falling and hitting other motorists / pedestrians - so its impractical to put them anywhere other than right at the bridge itself. Yes you could put up a set of bells on a wire or rubber flaps hung from a 16ft 6 structure (the height below which everything has to be signed) but the chances are most drivers would still ignore them.
I know Lower Downs Road, and can’t believe anyone hits it - it looks tight in a car, let alone a VW Combi. I also used to live near the Crofton Road bridge in Orpington, which had a regularly ignored sensor activated sign. One of the others listed is here in Grantham; my only surprise is which bridge is listed of the 3 100mph+ bridges that regularly cause delays here. If there’s an answer, it lies in hitting professional drivers and (especially) their employers much harder when these incidents happen. Presently, the balance is in the wrong place, and there’s too little incentive to get it right, and too much incentive to press on regardless. |
|
|
|
Post by ted672 on Nov 10, 2020 13:51:27 GMT
One issue I see with the 11'8" bridge is that the overheight warning sign is between a pair of traffic signals that show a green light to approaching traffic!
|
|
|
|
Post by djlynch on Nov 10, 2020 16:40:12 GMT
One issue I see with the 11'8" bridge is that the overheight warning sign is between a pair of traffic signals that show a green light to approaching traffic! The signal is tied in to the detectors for the warning sign. On the videos the lights go yellow (amber) at the same time the warning sign lights up, but American laws generally allow entering the intersection up to the instant the red light comes on and a lot of drivers will keep going even if they get there a second or two too late, so it's not as effective as it could be. |
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Nov 10, 2020 17:24:31 GMT
One issue I see with the 11'8" bridge is that the overheight warning sign is between a pair of traffic signals that show a green light to approaching traffic!
Large signs alert driver to the low clearance several blocks before the bridge. Half a block before the trestle, a sensor detects overheight vehicles and triggers an LED blackout warning sign that was installed in May 2016. That same sensor also triggers a red-light phase at the traffic light directly in front of the trestle (installed in March 2016), so the driver has 50 seconds to read the warning sign next to the red traffic light and consider their next move.
AFAICT, there is still no remedy for willful ignorance, only consequences (like paying for a new truck body, insurance won't cover it).
|
|
|
|
Post by billbedford on Nov 11, 2020 10:30:09 GMT
One issue I see with the 11'8" bridge is that the overheight warning sign is between a pair of traffic signals that show a green light to approaching traffic! The signal is tied in to the detectors for the warning sign. On the videos the lights go yellow (amber) at the same time the warning sign lights up, but American laws generally allow entering the intersection up to the instant the red light comes on and a lot of drivers will keep going even if they get there a second or two too late, so it's not as effective as it could be. But, then there's the old joke: What do the colours on traffic lights mean? Red = Stop Green = Go Amber = Go faster |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by class411 on Nov 11, 2020 11:35:46 GMT
What is the typical sanction against drivers that hit a British bridge?
A one month licence suspension for a first offence would probably concentrate their minds.
They need to realise, that unlike driving a car, when going under a bridge is not a hazard per-se, in any higher vehicle a bridge should always be considered a potential hazard.
At the moment that just does not seem to be the mind set for the drivers of higher vehicles. Better training and testing could also help (e.g the examiner could ask what was the height restriction after passing under any bridge).
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,761
|
Post by Chris M on Nov 11, 2020 11:54:36 GMT
From conversations about this elsewhere, I understand the typical sanction is a large fine and 6 points on your license - and in a non-trivial number of cases loss of employment. There are almost no drivers who hit a bridge more than once.
This combined with one of the biggest reasons bridges are hit being human factors - particularly driving a vehicle that is higher than they normally drive on a route they drive often - means that the solution isn't harsher punishment, the deterrent effect of that is already doing all the deterring it can do.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by class411 on Nov 11, 2020 12:18:23 GMT
From conversations about this elsewhere, I understand the typical sanction is a large fine and 6 points on your license - and in a non-trivial number of cases loss of employment. There are almost no drivers who hit a bridge more than once. This combined with one of the biggest reasons bridges are hit being human factors - particularly driving a vehicle that is higher than they normally drive on a route they drive often - means that the solution isn't harsher punishment, the deterrent effect of that is already doing all the deterring it can do. Yes, I wasn't really thinking harsher, just well directed. But if each driver only does it once, it sounds as if better training/testing would be the best way forward. |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Nov 11, 2020 13:04:51 GMT
A prime offender on the LU network is Roding Rd bridge about 100 yards north-east of Loughton station. This was built as a private road to the sewage works. It is now a busy distributor road.
I am aware of 12 hits in the last year, height 11ft 9. The reason is almost always driver inattention/use of cheap and inappropriate satnavs. The bridge is fitted with bridge defenders, which are effective, slicing the top completely off an EOS double decker (fortunately empty) a few years ago, with no disruption to the Central Line.
Essex highways say detectors would be too expensive and/or ineffective.
|
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Nov 11, 2020 14:36:15 GMT
Is it time to ask whether the road network can learn from railway practice?
Like it or not - regular bridge impacts show that "on their own" Signs, even flashing warning signs, get ignored by some drivers.
The sad fact is that loads of "professional" drivers and a fair few novices who have been let loose with a rental truck, can find themseleves driving in auto-pilot mode, blindly following the "in 100 metres turn left" instructions from a GPS. Sadly if it is a £49 bargain GPS it is probably just a basic car unit and very unlikely to have any overheight routing option.
So how do you wake people up?
On the railway, Permanent Way worksites are often protected not just by lights etc but also by a string of detonators. Three extremely loud bangs seems very effective way to get the attention of even the most zoned out train driver.
So if the average cost of each bridge strike is now well over £10,000 per incident, then surely that would be more than enough to cover protecting every affected site with a few extra protection devices. Like installing a sequence of movement sensors along the approach to every low bridge, but with additional repeater signs installed specifically at TRUCK window height which are equipped with a ballistic set of loudspeakers to instantly replay and direct the noise of a collossal BANG BANG BANG towards the cab of any approaching over height vehicle, if the movement sensors confirm they are ignoring the earlier signs and still approaching the bridge.
Rather than initially displaying a complex messages like OVER HEIGHT why not simply illuminate a blindingly bright - big red STOP (No Entry) sign directed aimed at truck cab level height. Once the sensors determine the vehicle is slowing, more complex messages can be conveyed - like over height turn right NOW. The key point to stress is thst it is now possible to accurately focus noise and the signage at truck cab level. Hence it should minimise the shock impact on any nearby pedestrians or regular car drivers but hopefully be ample to wake the driver in time to ensure they do stop before they hit any part of the bridge.
Sadly we all know bridges strikes have the potential to derail a train, perhaps with collossal loss of life, so whilst potentially giving the odd driver a nasty wake up call may sound a harsh response, if it actually saves a single life, then it is perhaps worthwhile. In short if detonators are deemed appropriate and permitted for use on the railway tracks passing over the bridge, then surely it is reasonable to take a similar approach to protect the railways from inattentive truck drivers. Indeed it cannot be any worse than the typical Guy Fawkes and Diwali noise warfare affecting much of Britain this week.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 11, 2020 17:36:30 GMT
What would appear to be very effective, but I have not seen done in practice, is a proposal I once saw for a dense spray across the path of the offending vehicle on which can be projected the word "STOP" (or a picture of a brick wall).
|
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,275
|
Post by roythebus on Nov 11, 2020 19:28:26 GMT
Having run my own bus company in the 1990s, I had several bridge incidents. All were down to driver error/stupidity/autopilot and what the DVLA staff unofficially call "DLAC" , driven like account or something similar.
One was with a new driver who had undertaken his induction the previous day by one of the occasional contributors on here and a highly qualified transport person. That driver was doing a wedding in an RM in south east London. The wedding went ok, he phoned to ask if he could get his AtoZ from his mum's place nearby. His mindset then was that he was in his cr going to mum's and found Southend Lane bridge. Another was driver had had done a day's rail replacement at Norwood Junction, no problem for 6 trips, out of the side roa, trun left and face the low bridge, but turn right to avoid it. Except on the going home trip, after all he was going home. South Ruislip, similar thing. It cost me a fortune replacing RM roofs and writing off 3 Metrobuses. All down to driver error. I spent a fortune installing Bridgeclear warning systems, but drivers kept unplugging and sabotaging them.
After the Norwood incident, we had the same job the following weekend, we used a couple of subcontractors, one from the South Mimms area (not Sullivan Buses I hasten to add). I was chatting to a driver and he mentioned the previous week's incident. what did he do? Went out of the side road, turned left and didn't turn right!! You really couldn't make it up.
|
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,275
|
Post by roythebus on Nov 11, 2020 19:31:06 GMT
These days I drive for Someone Else's Buses and my partner pilots drivers round the routes. She is very aware of low bridges when he's directing the buses. When drivers are going back to the depot we try to advise them which route to take. They usually say "oh I'll use the satnav". Our reply is "does it show you the low bridges, width restrictions and weight limits?" End of argument.
The Traffic Commissioners have recently advised operators that any driver involved in a low brige incident is likely to be brought before the TC and likely to have their vocational licence suspended for up to 6 months, this is on top of whatever the courts may dish out.
|
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Nov 11, 2020 19:35:35 GMT
From conversations about this elsewhere, I understand the typical sanction is a large fine and 6 points on your license - and in a non-trivial number of cases loss of employment. There are almost no drivers who hit a bridge more than once. This combined with one of the biggest reasons bridges are hit being human factors - particularly driving a vehicle that is higher than they normally drive on a route they drive often - means that the solution isn't harsher punishment, the deterrent effect of that is already doing all the deterring it can do. Which is why I put the focus on operators as well as drivers. I understand that HGV accidents in, I think Victoria, went down dramatically when haulage firms became criminally responsible if their timings led drivers to speed. The comments from roythebus about driver behaviours are also noted. |
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Nov 11, 2020 21:17:55 GMT
Personally I think doing more stuff to prevent bridge strikes is the right way to go. Fines and bans are all well and good but they are clearly not actually stopping the crashes.
Two things above caught my eye - the idea of discharging some sort of fog in front of an overheight vehicle superimposed with a ruddy great stop message just might work - without upsetting the neighbours.
I despair to hear that companies invest in preventative kit only to have it sabotaged. Surely this should be an instant dismissal offence. Your summary of nature of drivers when these strikes happen is revealing in several ways, and whilst additional training or massive fines against operators may help a bit - it is never going to stop all impacts.
That is why someone in D/Transport should be asked to add up all the costs and make a case for the Treasury to fund a massive but once off investment in improved preventative measures specifically tailored to each and every at risk bridge. I really cannot believe Essex Highways should be allowed to take such a stance when so many lives could be lost as a result of a disasterous bridge strike especially if HSE seems hell bent on fitting PEDs on tube station platforms to tackle a far less significant risk in terms of the number of potential lives at risk in each incident.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,761
|
Post by Chris M on Nov 11, 2020 22:35:04 GMT
I despair to hear that companies invest in preventative kit only to have it sabotaged. Surely this should be an instant dismissal offence. Your summary of nature of drivers when these strikes happen is revealing in several ways, and whilst additional training or massive fines against operators may help a bit - it is never going to stop all impacts. I have no idea if it happens with the kit mentioned by roythebus but I have heard that some height warning systems give out so many false positives (e.g. alert to a low bridge on a side road when the driver is going straight ahead) that drivers get so used to tuning out the warnings and they still hit bridges. |
|
|
|
Post by johnlinford on Nov 11, 2020 22:51:18 GMT
I know of at least one that in Wandsworth under a national rail bridge that gives a "Too high" warning for vehicles that aren't - and the drivers know they aren't too high and so ignore it. That can't help with compliance with warnings when they're somewhere they don't know.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Nov 11, 2020 22:57:51 GMT
In autumn 2010 we took my steam roller to the Middleton Railway; we always reccy our route first and one issue we identified as the railway over bridge on Sweet Street in Leeds. It is signed with restrictions of 11'5” high and 6'6" wide. The roller is only about ten feet high so no worries there, however we measured how wide it was: 6'6". Hmmm. The road under the bridge has large curved concrete kerbs and we were concerned as to where the measurement had been taken. Anyway, here's the result: flic.kr/p/8C3VhN |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,761
|
Post by Chris M on Nov 11, 2020 23:01:35 GMT
rincew1nd I know for height restrictions there is always a minimum of 3-6 inches between the bottom of the bridge and the height of a vehicle that is the same height as on the sign (the maximum legal height) and that the measurements are taken at the lowest point (i.e. on pavements if there are any). I imagine that width restrictions are similar but I don't know.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Nov 11, 2020 23:15:45 GMT
Well yes, before we tried to fit the roller through we did go and measure the road ourselves; just to be sure!
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Nov 12, 2020 8:14:48 GMT
|
|
