Read in a national newspaper that around 4 days ago,the local authority in the area of Ely spent a lot of money so that a low bridge in the area would be so easy to see that it would never be struck.It seems it was clattered within a few hours.Is this accurate or the press stirring it?
Probably true enough. Seems to be a regular occurance these days! Standards. 
lol how is the right question here, and he must have been doing some speed, using car satnav maybe?
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
yourhavingalarf:
Punchy Dan called it…Yesterday.
That’s a better picture ,looks like 3.5 / 5 tonner ish to me rather than a lorry
jakethesnake:
Probably true enough. Seems to be a regular occurance these days! Standards.
It was a 3.5t curtainsider. With all that dayglo they have put on the bridge you would be thinking twice with a roofbox on your car 
Actually you might have to, it’s only 9’00", the bridge that is.
Punchy Dan 1min. behind you
Perhaps the driver could say he was blinded by all the bright stripes and signage
Again. No need to go that way any more. But you can’t train stoopid. Obviously didn’t see how high it was, or the new bypass 1/2 mile behind him,.Or the level crossing…
Well it’s not a lorry for a start.
So media need to open their eyes also and report the correct information. Stop labelling truck drivers incorrectly.
Am I alone in thinking maybe money could be better spent lowering the level of the carrageway so that any vehicle could pass underneath or else put in a width restriction with a couple of steel columns on either side so they get bashed instead of the bridge. It still amazes me that this sort of thing happens though but I think the amount of times you have to divert miles to get around a bridge that is 1 or 2 inches too low for a 16’2" trailer must be causing more greenhouse gas emissions than might be saved by putting a few people on trains■■?
Maybe it is time for the use of sat navs which don’t include bridge heights should be prohibited in vehicles over 2m tall and make the data freely available to google and the sat nav companies to use■■?
Obviously the driver will be expected to drive acording to the road conditions etc…
ytrehodluap:
Am I alone in thinking maybe money could be better spent lowering the level of the carrageway so that any vehicle could pass underneath or else put in a width restriction with a couple of steel columns on either side so they get bashed instead of the bridge. It still amazes me that this sort of thing happens though but I think the amount of times you have to divert miles to get around a bridge that is 1 or 2 inches too low for a 16’2" trailer must be causing more greenhouse gas emissions than might be saved by putting a few people on trains■■?Maybe it is time for the use of sat navs which don’t include bridge heights should be prohibited in vehicles over 2m tall and make the data freely available to google and the sat nav companies to use■■?
Obviously the driver will be expected to drive acording to the road conditions etc…
They’ve just spent millions building a bypass round the bridge, so why lower the road or add width restrictions.
There is only one reason you can hit that bridge Stupidity.
The only good thing is that now the bypass is open it doesn’t snarl traffic up for everyone else whilst they remove stupids vehicle from under the bridge.
It won’t be long before someone else does it.
but but don’t you realise that driver facing cameras are the new cure all for anything, then from the comfort of your office desk you can freeze frame and see for yourself the gormless expressions on the faces of the half wits you…gaffers…employed, as the latest catastrophe unfolds.
As above posts, idiots will always do what idiots do, no amount of box ticking training or electronics or even by-passes will prevent idiocy.
The answer lies in recruitment and terms/conditions (inextricably linked and the route to cherry picking), and having the nous as an employer to realise that when an idiot has slipped through your recruitment process, that it is in your own interests to deal with the situation promptly, not ignore it, before said idiot can do what they always will, ie smash through bridges or any one of the hundreds of other costly and dangerous disasters they manage regularly.
Please employers, stop assuming all of your good staff are at the same level as the idiots with your ‘‘one size fits all based on lowest common denominator’’ managing stylee, the end result of which is a demoralised unappreciated workforce on the lookout for better jobs, and the best of luck once you reach that stage.
OK you’ve employed an idiot, and he’s done what they always do , but please stop with the knee jerk immediate re-training and subsequent spying equipment having to be forced on everyone else for the same issue, it’s so counter productive.
biggriffin:
ytrehodluap:
Am I alone in thinking maybe money could be better spent lowering the level of the carrageway so that any vehicle could pass underneath or else put in a width restriction with a couple of steel columns on either side so they get bashed instead of the bridge. It still amazes me that this sort of thing happens though but I think the amount of times you have to divert miles to get around a bridge that is 1 or 2 inches too low for a 16’2" trailer must be causing more greenhouse gas emissions than might be saved by putting a few people on trains■■?Maybe it is time for the use of sat navs which don’t include bridge heights should be prohibited in vehicles over 2m tall and make the data freely available to google and the sat nav companies to use■■?
Obviously the driver will be expected to drive acording to the road conditions etc…They’ve just spent millions building a bypass round the bridge, so why lower the road or add width restrictions.
Was talking about low bridges in general, I don’t know Ely particularly well it was obviously driver error that caused the collision and have no idea what the intended route was, however I do wonder if it would have been a large diversion to avoid the bridge?
The bypass may not have shown up on the sat nav which obviously wouldn’t have helped either…
ytrehodluap:
biggriffin:
ytrehodluap:
Am I alone in thinking maybe money could be better spent lowering the level of the carrageway so that any vehicle could pass underneath or else put in a width restriction with a couple of steel columns on either side so they get bashed instead of the bridge. It still amazes me that this sort of thing happens though but I think the amount of times you have to divert miles to get around a bridge that is 1 or 2 inches too low for a 16’2" trailer must be causing more greenhouse gas emissions than might be saved by putting a few people on trains■■?Maybe it is time for the use of sat navs which don’t include bridge heights should be prohibited in vehicles over 2m tall and make the data freely available to google and the sat nav companies to use■■?
Obviously the driver will be expected to drive acording to the road conditions etc…They’ve just spent millions building a bypass round the bridge, so why lower the road or add width restrictions.
Was talking about low bridges in general, I don’t know Ely particularly well it was obviously driver error that caused the collision and have no idea what the intended route was, however I do wonder if it would have been a large diversion to avoid the bridge?
The bypass may not have shown up on the sat nav which obviously wouldn’t have helped either…
Stop making excuses for stoopid, There’s enough warnings, the bridge is covered in dayglow stickers, and the road signs approaching are big enough. And you can even go over the railway via the level crossing…
biggriffin:
ytrehodluap:
biggriffin:
ytrehodluap:
Am I alone in thinking maybe money could be better spent lowering the level of the carrageway so that any vehicle could pass underneath or else put in a width restriction with a couple of steel columns on either side so they get bashed instead of the bridge. It still amazes me that this sort of thing happens though but I think the amount of times you have to divert miles to get around a bridge that is 1 or 2 inches too low for a 16’2" trailer must be causing more greenhouse gas emissions than might be saved by putting a few people on trains■■?Maybe it is time for the use of sat navs which don’t include bridge heights should be prohibited in vehicles over 2m tall and make the data freely available to google and the sat nav companies to use■■?
Obviously the driver will be expected to drive acording to the road conditions etc…The detour is about twenty metres and as big griffin says the bypass has plenty big signs but it only opened a couple of months ago so probably not on many idiot navs yet. Best one I saw there was a builders van with a load of plastic pipes sticking over the roof was so busy looking at me loading in the station car park didn’t look at bridge, crash broken plastic everywhere
They’ve just spent millions building a bypass round the bridge, so why lower the road or add width restrictions.Was talking about low bridges in general, I don’t know Ely particularly well it was obviously driver error that caused the collision and have no idea what the intended route was, however I do wonder if it would have been a large diversion to avoid the bridge?
The bypass may not have shown up on the sat nav which obviously wouldn’t have helped either…Stop making excuses for stoopid, There’s enough warnings, the bridge is covered in dayglow stickers, and the road signs approaching are big enough. And you can even go over the railway via the level crossing…
Close the road, brick it up and fill it in and grass it over and plant a few trees!
howatsi:
Close the road, brick it up and fill it in and grass it over and plant a few trees!
If they do that the local paper will go bust as there won’t be any news to report,.
Last year it was revealed that despite numerous warning signs, HGV drivers continue to underestimate the height of the bridge and have caused 36 hours of delays for rail passengers.
Underestimate■■? More like they underestimate the height of what they are driving. Do newspapers not employ proof readers anymore?