as someone said in the replies why not put a wooden barrier up 15ft high about a mile or so before the bridge , hit that then you will hit the bridge ? , at least it will stop the bridge having the be checked everytime some d#ck hits it . just replace the wooden barrier , lot cheaper .
gingo:
as someone said in the replies why not put a wooden barrier up 15ft high about a mile or so before the bridge , hit that then you will hit the bridge ? , at least it will stop the bridge having the be checked everytime some d#ck hits it . just replace the wooden barrier , lot cheaper .
A sign,.yellow and black chevrons, and ■■■■ big letters saying ‘LOW BRIDGE’, and the useless ■■■■ s still.can’t see it?
They probably wouldn’t even notice they’d hit a wooden barrier.
You can’t legislate for dead from the neck up morons, I don’t think anything would deter them from seeing a bridge.
Instant 5 year driving ban would be a start. if only to get them off the roads amongst the rest of us. 
gingo:
as someone said in the replies why not put a wooden barrier up 15ft high about a mile or so before the bridge , hit that then you will hit the bridge ? , at least it will stop the bridge having the be checked everytime some d#ck hits it . just replace the wooden barrier , lot cheaper .
What , along with the numerous signs and electronic height waring boards on the route to the bridge (6 waring signs and 1 electronic in the 2 miles between the M69 junction and the bridge). I’d go further than Rob and say anyone that hits one should never be allowed a license again!
totally agree so many signs warning u before u get to it both ways.drivers do not pay attention half tiem or take note of height of trlbefore leaving yard seen it many times.when u ask them how tall the trl is and all u get ive no idea im using motorway so why i need to know.errrr u do now stop get out chekc it as u may have to use a diversion if they close it doppy.
also u think by now they may have done somethign mroe to improve it more signs with more turning areas aswell.or even dug the road out to make higher so that it does not get striked at all.ok cost pretty penny and course problems as they do the work but save time and money the amoutn of times it been hit and damaged
thunder367:
also u think by now they may have done somethign mroe to improve it more signs with more turning areas aswell.or even dug the road out to make higher so that it does not get striked at all.ok cost pretty penny and course problems as they do the work but save time and money the amoutn of times it been hit and damaged
With some bridges I do agree with the above statement regarding turning areas, but not this one as there’s a roundabout half a mile each way from it . Think drainage issues are stopping it being dug out deeper. And how much more can the do with signs, each approach prior to the roundabouts has lots of signage and an electronic height detector with large flashing sign!! What more can they realitically do to stop absoulute morons hitting it■■?
I like the curtain of overhead hanging heavy chains on the A619 Barlborough to Worksop road either side of the rail bridge.
Once erected there’s zero maintenance, anyone who hits them would know all about it, probably light damage to the front edge of anything but a container but no inspection or repair would be needed to the chains or supports, one mild strike saved would pay for them.
Go on someone tell me that muppets have hit the chains before now, and too thick to realise what that means have still managed to hit the bridge.
Henrys cat:
What more can they realitically do to stop absoulute morons hitting it■■?
This is about all there is left to try, even then I’m not confident it would stop the strikes completely
truckinginfo.com/158996/aus … technology
The problem with a big frame.It would have to be robust enough to not collapse into traffic coming the other wsy.
Im told they cant dig it lower because of water drainage issues,but they need to think of something.One thing we all know is that the bridge is going to be contunually hit so something needs to be done.I do wonder,isnt the bridge going to end up with permanent damage if keeps getting hit at up to 40mph…
gingo:
as someone said in the replies why not put a wooden barrier up 15ft high about a mile or so before the bridge , hit that then you will hit the bridge ? , at least it will stop the bridge having the be checked everytime some d#ck hits it . just replace the wooden barrier , lot cheaper .
Or a gantry with heavy hanging chains etc like the Blackwall tunnel.Theyd’d probably know it if they hit them better than a plank of wood.
Sploom:
The problem with a big frame.It would have to be robust enough to not collapse into traffic coming the other wsy.
Im told they cant dig it lower because of water drainage issues,but they need to think of something.One thing we all know is that the bridge is going to be contunually hit so something needs to be done.I do wonder,isnt the bridge going to end up with permanent damage if keeps getting hit at up to 40mph…
Maybe look at the other end of the possibilities.
Allowing LHVs but strictly limited to 4m max height.Anything over that height comes under STGO regs, would be a good start in reducing the odds of bridges being bashed.
Juddian:
I like the curtain of overhead hanging heavy chains on the A619 Barlborough to Worksop road either side of the rail bridge.
Once erected there’s zero maintenance, anyone who hits them would know all about it, probably light damage to the front edge of anything but a container but no inspection or repair would be needed to the chains or supports, one mild strike saved would pay for them.Go on someone tell me that muppets have hit the chains before now, and too thick to realise what that means have still managed to hit the bridge.
Yep, I remember an agency driver on Stobarts Barlborough taking a decker through there on the way back to the yard, and apparently only stopping when he was flagged down at the roundabout after it!! All the rest of us were taken off decker work for a week until we recieved training (told to check the height)
^^ i knew it 
The chains look about 30" or more long so the frame holding them would probably clear a decker.
PS, why am i not surprised about the knee jerk reaction to that incident, one clown who shouldn’t have been allowed within a mile of a wagon did as anyone with an ounce of common bwteen their shell likes probably forsaw, so naturally everyone else who works for the company without any issues is immediately assumed to be as idiotic/incompetent in the eyes of the management…a management incidentally who allowed said clown to attend the steering wheel of one of their wagons.
Henrys cat:
gingo:
as someone said in the replies why not put a wooden barrier up 15ft high about a mile or so before the bridge , hit that then you will hit the bridge ? , at least it will stop the bridge having the be checked everytime some d#ck hits it . just replace the wooden barrier , lot cheaper .What , along with the numerous signs and electronic height waring boards on the route to the bridge (6 waring signs and 1 electronic in the 2 miles between the M69 junction and the bridge). I’d go further than Rob and say anyone that hits one should never be allowed a license again!
well they obviously havent seen them or paid attention to them , so maybe whacking i wooden barrier or chains as juddian suggested might make them pay attention , better than hitting the bridge .
gingo:
maybe whacking chains as juddian suggested might make them pay attention , better than hitting the bridge .
^
All those signs are irrelevant because I’m in car driver mode with this automatic heap designed to drive just like my car.
BANG CRASH oh zb I forgot all about the overheight trailer/load that I’m pulling.
Look on the bright side no bridges or tunnels were bashed.
gingo:
[better than hitting the bridge .
Or getting wedged in a tunnel.
Carryfast:
Sploom:
The problem with a big frame.It would have to be robust enough to not collapse into traffic coming the other wsy.
Im told they cant dig it lower because of water drainage issues,but they need to think of something.One thing we all know is that the bridge is going to be contunually hit so something needs to be done.I do wonder,isnt the bridge going to end up with permanent damage if keeps getting hit at up to 40mph…Maybe look at the other end of the possibilities.
Allowing LHVs but strictly limited to 4m max height.Anything over that height comes under STGO regs, would be a good start in reducing the odds of bridges being bashed.
CF stop dreaming about using 4metre euro spec trailers your euro career never happened get over it
robthedog:
Carryfast:
Sploom:
The problem with a big frame.It would have to be robust enough to not collapse into traffic coming the other wsy.
Im told they cant dig it lower because of water drainage issues,but they need to think of something.One thing we all know is that the bridge is going to be contunually hit so something needs to be done.I do wonder,isnt the bridge going to end up with permanent damage if keeps getting hit at up to 40mph…Maybe look at the other end of the possibilities.
Allowing LHVs but strictly limited to 4m max height.Anything over that height comes under STGO regs, would be a good start in reducing the odds of bridges being bashed.CF stop dreaming about using 4metre euro spec trailers your euro career never happened get over it
To be fair 9 axle 25m LHVs ain’t ‘euro spec’.
Better than hitting just about every marked UK bridge with a 16’ high trailer which carries less load.
leicestermercury.co.uk/news … rk-6077778
Plans for new industrial estate nearby include the developer digging out the road to lower the bridge.
The last thing they need is the bridge lowering! 