The driver is bloody lucky no-one was walking on it when it was struck 
Jailsville 
eagerbeaver:
The driver is bloody lucky no-one was walking on it when it was struckJailsville
I only live approx 500 metres away from that bridgeā¦and had been walking my dog over it several hrs before the crash!
The M6 between Jct 25 - 27 has seen quite a number of accidents involving lorries lately and now thisā¦
ā¦Iām almost embarrassed to admit what I do for a living at the momentā¦locals arenāt impressed by truck drivers right now!
Lancsdriver70:
eagerbeaver:
The driver is bloody lucky no-one was walking on it when it was struckJailsville
I only live approx 500 metres away from that bridgeā¦and had been walking my dog over it several hrs before the crash!
The M6 between Jct 25 - 27 has seen quite a number of accidents involving lorries lately and now thisā¦
ā¦Iām almost embarrassed to admit what I do for a living at the momentā¦locals arenāt impressed by truck drivers right now!
I know what you mean mate 
The last few months have been a bit bleak for wagon drivers, far too many accidents 
Bridge strikes are happening on an almost daily basis.
Bit of super glue will have that re installed.
I bet the over height buzzer was on unless disconnected, itās a wonder he got the legs up with out putting the crane away ,unless itās like mine thatās been doctored 
Punchy Dan:
I bet the over height buzzer was on unless disconnected, itās a wonder he got the legs up with out putting the crane away ,unless itās like mine thatās been doctored
And it was a brilliant cure, but in this case they lost the patient. 
Sooo luckyā¦
No one was on the bridge at the time.
Lazy boy has left it extended out and still chained for a quick tip at the other end.
Costly shortcut.
what would you tell prospective employers after getting the sack,can you imagine the scenario,WHY WERE YOU SACKED,driver,I DEMOLISHED A BRIDGE,you have to be honest no two ways about it,doubt if employers will trust him.
truckman020:
what would you tell prospective employers after getting the sack,can you imagine the scenario,WHY WERE YOU SACKED,driver,I DEMOLISHED A BRIDGE,you have to be honest no two ways about it,doubt if employers will trust him.
I would lie you donāt have to say you got sacked and they canāt give a bad reference.
Of course they can give a bad reference! They can state that you were sacked, and they can state the reasons for that sacking. As long as the statements are factual and can be backed up with evidence if necessary. gov.uk/work-reference
adam277:
truckman020:
what would you tell prospective employers after getting the sack,can you imagine the scenario,WHY WERE YOU SACKED,driver,I DEMOLISHED A BRIDGE,you have to be honest no two ways about it,doubt if employers will trust him.I would lie you donāt have to say you got sacked and they canāt give a bad reference.
They can state the full truth, but there is often dispute as to what the truth actually is. For example, part of the full truth may be that the employer had nobbled the hydraulics on the wagon, and that they were putting time pressure on the driver to take shortcuts, or that it had been an accepted practice.
Unless the employer is willing to air this dirty linen every time another employer asks about their former employee (and itās dirty linen that the employer may wish to keep as low-profile as possible, including from the authorities who may already have been painstakingly misled into believing that it was all the employeeās fault), then they cannot give an accurate reference concerning those facts.
Even what seem like straightforward cases, like that an employee was sacked for stealing from the till, it may in fact be the truth that there was only circumstantial evidence and that the employerās money handling procedures were deficient - for example, because the till was not expected to be regularly counted and verified, or because there were too many keys for the till. An employer is rarely going to want to admit that the true facts are that they could not be certain who was responsible, but that they felt a head had to roll.
The underlying assumption in the referencing process is that the employer is always truthful and objective about the employee, but the employee is not necessarily so.
Because that assumption is false, that is why the law has maneovuered into a position where unless the reference is agreed between the employer and employee to be true, or unless the employer is willing to prove in court that a non-agreed reference is the whole truth, then employers should simply give neutral information.
Rjan:
adam277:
truckman020:
what would you tell prospective employers after getting the sack,can you imagine the scenario,WHY WERE YOU SACKED,driver,I DEMOLISHED A BRIDGE,you have to be honest no two ways about it,doubt if employers will trust him.I would lie you donāt have to say you got sacked and they canāt give a bad reference.
They can state the full truth, but there is often dispute as to what the truth actually is. For example, part of the full truth may be that the employer had nobbled the hydraulics on the wagon, and that they were putting time pressure on the driver to take shortcuts, or that it had been an accepted practice.
Unless the employer is willing to air this dirty linen every time another employer asks about their former employee (and itās dirty linen that the employer may wish to keep as low-profile as possible, including from the authorities who may already have been painstakingly misled into believing that it was all the employeeās fault), then they cannot give an accurate reference concerning those facts.
Even what seem like straightforward cases, like that an employee was sacked for stealing from the till, it may in fact be the truth that there was only circumstantial evidence and that the employerās money handling procedures were deficient - for example, because the till was not expected to be regularly counted and verified, or because there were too many keys for the till. An employer is rarely going to want to admit that the true facts are that they could not be certain who was responsible, but that they felt a head had to roll.
The underlying assumption in the referencing process is that the employer is always truthful and objective about the employee, but the employee is not necessarily so.
Because that assumption is false, that is why the law has maneovuered into a position where unless the reference is agreed between the employer and employee to be true, or unless the employer is willing to prove in court that a non-agreed reference is the whole truth, then employers should simply give neutral information.
The problem being that in this type of case a dangerous driving conviction will be very likely and that isnāt dependent on any excuse of management pressure and which also obviously forms a reasonable reason for termination of employment as part of that.Also bearing in mind that the onus would be on the employee to prove mismanagement which could get very messy in court if the employer chooses to fight the allegations and the employee loses.Realistically being pushed by a guvnor to carry out dodgy work practices has always been a grey area with only one real solution in that itās the employees responsibility to either refuse to do them and/or walk away from the job.Safe stowage of dangerous truck mounted equipment being the driverās responsibility and no one elseās in the eyes of the law.
Lancsdriver70:
eagerbeaver:
The driver is bloody lucky no-one was walking on it when it was struckJailsville
I only live approx 500 metres away from that bridgeā¦and had been walking my dog over it several hrs before the crash!
The M6 between Jct 25 - 27 has seen quite a number of accidents involving lorries lately and now thisā¦
ā¦Iām almost embarrassed to admit what I do for a living at the momentā¦locals arenāt impressed by truck drivers right now!
Oh come onā¦ Surely you could embellish that a bit: āI would have been on that bridge if my dog hadnāt stopped for a crap on the wayāā¦
What i learned from recent events is never use a footbridge. Only ones i seen come down were that M20 one and now this one. Road and rail bridges get hit with virtually no damage except a little dint.
Obviously they dont use the same quality fixings for these, scary.
trevHCS:
What i learned from recent events is never use a footbridge. Only ones i seen come down were that M20 one and now this one. Road and rail bridges get hit with virtually no damage except a little dint.Obviously they dont use the same quality fixings for these, scary.
erm because they donāt need to be as strongā¦
how many pedestrians would you need on the bridge at the same time to weigh the same as a freight train ?
trevHCS:
What i learned from recent events is never use a footbridge. Only ones i seen come down were that M20 one and now this one. Road and rail bridges get hit with virtually no damage except a little dint.Obviously they dont use the same quality fixings for these, scary.
Big bridges arent screwed down generally are they? Dont they just sit in guides allowing them to expand and contract?
Anyone can correct me on that of course.
Tooz:
trevHCS:
What i learned from recent events is never use a footbridge. Only ones i seen come down were that M20 one and now this one. Road and rail bridges get hit with virtually no damage except a little dint.Obviously they dont use the same quality fixings for these, scary.
erm because they donāt need to be as strongā¦
how many pedestrians would you need on the bridge at the same time to weigh the same as a freight train ?
They obviously need to provide similar lateral location in the foreseeable event of a bridge strike from the road.That being what was missing in both cases.In this case the vertical support posts which should have been triangulated and splayed out at an angle to stop the bridge being pushed over sideways and the bridge deck to post mounting method in the case of the M20 example to stop the bridge deck being pushed sideways off its support post.
2nd picture down, the boom is still extended and the chains are still on the container. Case closed.
A bad day which could`ve been much worse.
Owner driver??
They seem to have a few vehicles in their fleet - and based at Haydock, barely 5 miles from where the accident happened.
Itās possible that the driver loaded the container, got distracted and forgot about the crane. But itās also quite possible that it was a deliberate act to save time taking the chains off and folding away the crane. āJust ten minutes back to the yard, itāll be fine.ā
The crane does look like itās been left extended while lowered against the top of the container, rather than left in the position it would be in while loading, as if the driver has assumed it would be low enough to drive like that, but the front of the arm must have stuck up higher.
But the lack of safety features to prevent it being driven, or at least warning devices, makes you wonder if the driver, or whole company, has a habit of taking shortcuts.
Glen A9:
They seem to have a few vehicles in their fleet - and based at Haydock, barely 5 miles from where the accident happened.0
Itās possible that the driver loaded the container, got distracted and forgot about the crane. But itās also quite possible that it was a deliberate act to save time taking the chains off and folding away the crane. āJust ten minutes back to the yard, itāll be fine.ā
The crane does look like itās been left extended while lowered against the top of the container, rather than left in the position it would be in while loading, as if the driver has assumed it would be low enough to drive like that, but the front of the arm must have stuck up higher.But the lack of safety features to prevent it being driven, or at least warning devices, makes you wonder if the driver, or whole company, has a habit of taking shortcuts.
All their trucks are quite recent, though; I see a fair few trucks rolling around with the HIAB extended over the load, or extended over the body and the end chained to the bed, but they tend to be old. Some cranes canāt be folded and are designed to be left extended (as itās expected that a brick grab will be attached), but this was clearly a foldable one and he didnāt fold it.
The MAN trucks Jewsonās use, with the HMF crane, wonāt exceed 5mph unless the crane is stowed properly at minimum height, or folded. Perhaps all of them should have that feature, as unstowed cranes are lethal.