Google Streetview has the bridge at 4.3m (14’ 3") in 2009
google.co.uk/maps/@52.29065 … 56!6m1!1e1
The recent image with the lorry jammed underneath says 4.2m (14’ 0")
4.2 metre is 13’ 9". So the sign is ambiguous, and if the bridge is only 13’ 9" then the 4.2m marking is dangerously misleading.
Bluey Circles:
Google Streetview has the bridge at 4.3m (14’ 3") in 2009
google.co.uk/maps/@52.29065 … 56!6m1!1e1The recent image with the lorry jammed underneath says 4.2m (14’ 0")
4.2 metre is 13’ 9". So the sign is ambiguous, and if the bridge is only 13’ 9" then the 4.2m marking is dangerously misleading.
The calculations for the figure to be shown on the signs are different for Metric and Imperial.
A bridge marked as 4.2m could have been measured at between 4.28m and 4.37m (i.e. about 14’ 1" and about 14’ 4")
A bridge marked at 14’ 0" could have been measured at between 14’ 3" and just under 14’ 6"
So the A428 bridge appears to actually be somewhere around 14’ 3" or 14’ 4".
At least I think that’s correct from my reading of the Chapter 4 Traffic SIgns Manual.
Roymondo:
Bluey Circles:
Google Streetview has the bridge at 4.3m (14’ 3") in 2009
google.co.uk/maps/@52.29065 … 56!6m1!1e1The recent image with the lorry jammed underneath says 4.2m (14’ 0")
4.2 metre is 13’ 9". So the sign is ambiguous, and if the bridge is only 13’ 9" then the 4.2m marking is dangerously misleading.The calculations for the figure to be shown on the signs are different for Metric and Imperial.
A bridge marked as 4.2m could have been measured at between 4.28m and 4.37m (i.e. about 14’ 1" and about 14’ 4")
A bridge marked at 14’ 0" could have been measured at between 14’ 3" and just under 14’ 6"So the A428 bridge appears to actually be somewhere around 14’ 3" or 14’ 4".
At least I think that’s correct from my reading of the Chapter 4 Traffic SIgns Manual.
That is my something-learnt-for-today; I had often wondered why the metric and imperial often don’t match!
I had always expected a margin of error to be on the side of safety, but never knew the formula. (minus 3" then round down to the next 3" increment).
Still begs the question " This is going to be tight " (Leave it Dipper), so a decent driver would gently try and creep under if they fancied the gamble.
eagerbeaver:
Still begs the question " This is going to be tight " (Leave it Dipper), so a decent driver would gently try and creep under if they fancied the gamble.
Begs what question?
The question is why didn’t the driver GENTLY try and get under the bridge if the suspicion was that it could be very close?
Unless the prick had no idea whatsoever what the height of his/her vehicle was.
eagerbeaver:
The question is why didn’t the driver GENTLY try and get under the bridge if the suspicion was that it could be very close?Unless the prick had no idea whatsoever what the height of his/her vehicle was.
Judging by how far he wedged it under the bridge, I think it takes no speculation to conclude that the ‘driver’ was neither aware of the dimensions of his vehicle, or even considered that the bridge might be to low. Or indeed had any awareness of his surroundings.
DJC:
Edit to add, telematics allegedly shows it hit at 47mph, followed immediately by a harsh acceleration episode so I’m assuming cruise control (no hesitation) or holding foot on accelerator due to impact, why not brake?
Driver must have got a hell of a fright, sitting their minding your own business, maybe rolling a smoke up … then BAM! your false teeth hit the windscreen. 47mph to 0mph in 35 foot? that is some de-acceleration.
Bluey Circles:
DJC:
Edit to add, telematics allegedly shows it hit at 47mph, followed immediately by a harsh acceleration episode so I’m assuming cruise control (no hesitation) or holding foot on accelerator due to impact, why not brake?Driver must have got a hell of a fright, sitting their minding your own business, maybe rolling a smoke up … then BAM! your false teeth hit the windscreen. 47mph to 0mph in 35 foot? that is some de-acceleration.
Lucky for him he was wearing his seat belt. …
eagerbeaver:
I reckon Truckyboy is on the money.It’s about time that ALL depot’s have telescopic height sticks available, and that they INSIST that you use it before you leave the depot.
Bridge strike = Dole in my opinion.
DSV at Immingham have an electronic height sensor at the gate, as you hand in your gatepass your vehicle height is shown on a screen above the window. Hardly rocket science and certainly cheaper than one bridge strike
OVLOV JAY:
Could be curtains for maritime. Last years massive crash that sparked the in cab cameras, had left them almost uninsurable. The drivers got their annual Christmas letter, explaining why no bonus, and they were told one more massive claim and they were done for. Could be interesting as bridge strikes do tend to run into millions
I thought they might self insure as a way round it. My firms insurance bill has gone up by 80k this year due to the amount of claims.
Judging by some of the clowns antics in the yard it’s not surprising though.
Self insurance is a one-trick pony though. One really big claim (such as bashing a bridge) and the company could be made insolvent and wound up.
kr79:
OVLOV JAY:
Could be curtains for maritime. Last years massive crash that sparked the in cab cameras, had left them almost uninsurable. The drivers got their annual Christmas letter, explaining why no bonus, and they were told one more massive claim and they were done for. Could be interesting as bridge strikes do tend to run into millionsI thought they might self insure as a way round it. My firms insurance bill has gone up by 80k this year due to the amount of claims.
Judging by some of the clowns antics in the yard it’s not surprising though.
I thought that, but with 1200 units and 2500 trailers, what sort of cash do you need in reserve? They work on a 4% margin according to my boss, so self insuring might be uneconomical
mazzer:
eagerbeaver:
I reckon Truckyboy is on the money.It’s about time that ALL depot’s have telescopic height sticks available, and that they INSIST that you use it before you leave the depot.
Bridge strike = Dole in my opinion.
DSV at Immingham have an electronic height sensor at the gate, as you hand in your gatepass your vehicle height is shown on a screen above the window. Hardly rocket science and certainly cheaper than one bridge strike
Sainsbury`s @ Stoke have / had the same system, I haven’t been in there for ages, but it was there the last time I went in.
OVLOV JAY:
kr79:
OVLOV JAY:
Could be curtains for maritime. Last years massive crash that sparked the in cab cameras, had left them almost uninsurable. The drivers got their annual Christmas letter, explaining why no bonus, and they were told one more massive claim and they were done for. Could be interesting as bridge strikes do tend to run into millionsI thought they might self insure as a way round it. My firms insurance bill has gone up by 80k this year due to the amount of claims.
Judging by some of the clowns antics in the yard it’s not surprising though.I thought that, but with 1200 units and 2500 trailers, what sort of cash do you need in reserve? They work on a 4% margin according to my boss, so self insuring might be uneconomical
No idea I know turners of Soham self insure and have a fair size fleet and royal mail used to but was at the time government owned.
Thing is in today’s compensation culture claims can escalate and waking a railway bridge won’t be cheap.
kr79:
waking a railway bridge won’t be cheap.
Totally agree mate. Much better to let sleeping bridges lie.
the maoster:
kr79:
waking a railway bridge won’t be cheap.Totally agree mate. Much better to let sleeping bridges lie.
Legally, in order to “self insure” you have to keep £500,000 deposited with the Accountant General of the Senior Courts.
Roymondo:
Legally, in order to “self insure” you have to keep £500,000 deposited with the Accountant General of the Senior Courts.
That seems an astonishingly low figure. You could easily run up double that if you were to seriously injure someone leaving them needing lifetime 24/7 care.
And if a bridge strike caused a serious derailment of a high speed passenger train with scores dead and hundreds seriously injured, plus a new train to buy and tracks to relay and compensation for all the disruption - can’t see a piddly 500,000 going far. The truck and load could be that by itself.
It’s not just that figure though. Not only do you have to put that amount of money on deposit - you have to be able to afford to do that and carry on with the rest of your life/business. The day you have to draw on that £500k to meet a claim is the day you cease to exist (from a financial standpoint).