Low Bridges and Sat Nav's

[jobseeker]

Since I drive wagons of varying heights everyday I’ve adopted a safe working procedure:
Before leaving the yard I measure the load and set the height indicator. When approaching a low bridge, glance at the height indicator and check it against the sign. Too high? stop and find another route.

If this simple procedure is followed it’s impossible to hit a low bridge, no sat nav or tech involved.
If you cannot follow this procedure you shouldn’t be driving, not even a van.

Wages have nothing to do with hitting bridges, just incompetence.

[the_maoster]

jobseeker:
Wages have nothing to do with hitting bridges, just incompetence.

Agreed. No amount of folding in your wallet will stop a person being incompetent. But why hire incompetence when you can take the option of hiring competence?

[stevieboy308]

Juddian:

stevieboy308:

Juddian:

what’s the difference between a proper bridge height map and a sat nav loaded with the same data base of bridge heights?

Nothing like the area coverage on two spread pages for overview…exception being a full size computer screen which can be readily and clearly resized.

Map doesn’t throw a wobbly when power drops nor does it ever need a reboot, it always works.

As i said sat nav a fine tool to run alongside, it’s great for spotting likely camera sites, its superb for early warnings of unmarked turnings, and excellent in strange towns, and if so fitted it keeps an eye on the traffic for you, but one thing it should not do is tell a pro lorry driver what route he should take…only my opinion.
Its a brilliant pocket sized street map of the country though, and at that it beats maps hands down.

don’t get me wrong, i always kept a bridge height atlas with me. but type in where i want to go into a sat nav, check to see if i agree with the route, do a search of the route for low bridges, it would also tell you of any bridges off the route but close to it, if anything needed avoiding, click avoid, check again and good to go.

they might not be for you, but worked fine for me.

[stevieboy308]

jobseeker:
Since I drive wagons of varying heights everyday I’ve adopted a safe working procedure:
Before leaving the yard I measure the load and set the height indicator. When approaching a low bridge, glance at the height indicator and check it against the sign. Too high? stop and find another route.

If this simple procedure is followed it’s impossible to hit a low bridge, no sat nav or tech involved.
If you cannot follow this procedure you shouldn’t be driving, not even a van.

Wages have nothing to do with hitting bridges, just incompetence.

so do you plan a route to avoid low bridges? or just work around if you arrive at one?

[m_attt]

Its not hard to work around them. Theres always plenty of warning and the worst ones normally have signs with alternative route avoiding low bridge. Its not a ‘mistake’ hitting a low bridge its stupid. You have a cab height marker. Bridges have plenty of signs. Also if it looks close stop, get out and look. Screw the cars behind will be more of a delay if you get wedged under it.

[stevieboy308]

m_attt:
Its not hard to work around them. Theres always plenty of warning and the worst ones normally have signs with alternative route avoiding low bridge. Its not a ‘mistake’ hitting a low bridge its stupid. You have a cab height marker. Bridges have plenty of signs. Also if it looks close stop, get out and look. Screw the cars behind will be more of a delay if you get wedged under it.

don’t we all do stupid things from time to time?

isn’t it better to plan a route so you don’t come up against a low bridge?

[plugster]

make the drivers sign a declaration of the height of the vehicle they take out, every bridge should be treated as as low, unless they have seen the sign of the height of it then DO NOT PROCEED, better to stop than hit it,
make them pay £1500 towards the excess of a bridge strike, or just sack the monkeys as the only way i could hit a bridge is if the height indaction on the bridge was wrong as i treat every bridges as i would a speed camera, unless its safe and i know he height then i wont go under it simples

[wheelnutt]

shep532:

Plugster:
pre plan the routes for the drivers ■■?

This is done. Someone in an office checks the map for low bridges and decides a route for the driver. This way a bridge cannot be hit. This is based on the loaders measurement of the load.

The last two strikes the driver had deviated and stumbled across a bridge. Both of the last two were about 18" out and well smacked the load. The last one left the back of the wagon to lie in the road. CCTV shows a cyclist arrive on scene just minutes later - close call.

Yes the drivers are at fault but I am trying to think of a way to avoid the human error eliment, or at least help.

Map? Get TomTom fleet and an API to the office planning software, making sure that the software can plan around height and weight limits. The API sends the route to the drivers Satnav and the route is monitored real time, if the driver deviates the office knows immediately, if the traffic changes or there is a diversion the software tells the driver and the office, if the driver still goes off route the Satnav can tell him to stop and the office knows. The API can be set up to manage exceptions only, so as long as the driver sticks to his route and drives efficiently there is no notification back in the office, when the driver changes his route or hits the brakes excessively or idles for more than say 5 minutes the office is made aware, that way you don’t have to monitor if all goes well, you only monitor when you need to monitor the driver based on your exceptions.

If there is a roadblock and the driver needs to divert, he hits the diversion button, the software back in the office plans a new route and lets the driver know, it is as fast as a normal satnav, but the planning software takes control of the satnav instead of the unit itself.

The nice thing is that the telematics can also be connected live and the office knows when the driver stops, when he is sitting idling his engine, when he brakes too hard or drives too fast. You know when he gets to the customer, you can even upload delivery notes, contact details etc straight to the screen.

There is no excuse nowadays to not use automatics to make the routes safer and more efficient, you can outfit each truck for a few hundred quid and the monthly charge is about 15 quid. You can probably do a whole fleet of 200 trucks for the price of one bridge strike.

A properly configured automated routing software package will pay for itself in no time, not just by no longer having drivers hit bridges but also by making the routing more efficient, saving time and making the drivers aware that driving style is being monitored real time.

As to the incab height indicator, make sure it is installed in the drivers field of view, not hidden away somewhere so even subconsciously he is constantly reminded of the height.

[pat_hasler]

As I have stated many times in the past … DON’T USE SATNAVS FFS.
Use a road atlas, how do you think we all coped before they were invented ? We knew what we were doing, we were skilled (well some of us anyway) and professional drivers. I moved over here in 2000, a strange land with huge and very strange cities, how do you think I coped ? I learned how to get places that’s how. If you rely on satnavs for your job you need to get a job in a shop.

[wheelnutt]

Pat Hasler:
As I have stated many times in the past … DON’T USE SATNAVS FFS.
Use a road atlas, how do you think we all coped before they were invented ? We knew what we were doing, we were skilled (well some of us anyway) and professional drivers. I moved over here in 2000, a strange land with huge and very strange cities, how do you think I coped ? I learned how to get places that’s how. If you rely on satnavs for your job you need to get a job in a shop.

The world has moved on, computers are a lot more efficient than you could ever be. Aviation and shipping is now fully automated, road haulage is definitely lacking behind and there are plenty of cheap solutions available that will do the job a lot better and more efficient than a human ever could.

By your reasoning, pilots should look out the window again as they did in the 20’s and ships should go back to pocket watches and sextants…

[georgy]

anyone seen this !

youtube.com/watch?v=yIX97-8O4ao

[sumsmeister]

the maoster:
No amount of folding in your wallet will stop a person being incompetent. But why hire incompetence when you can take the option of hiring competence?

Because it costs more. From an operators p.o.v., (I’m not one and this only IMO) there top priority is their bottom line. And pretty much their only one, from talking to other drivers. Chasing the almighty dollar/pound/unit of currency has become almost a religious activity it seems. Mind you, if wages did start to creep up for “top jobs”, they would be even more competition for jobs and interviews…
If you have a higher than usual load on, you could put a removable label/sticker/number plate in the cab in addition to the legal requirement (don’t obstruct your view of the road), along the lines of “BRIDGE! THINK!”. I don’t think there’s a one size fits all solution, because we’re all different and need to discover what works for us, individually.

[f-reds]

I tell you what wheelnutt, why don’t you just put a radio controlled doodad in every cockpit? Sorry I mean cab, and do away with driver entirely.

That would devalue the job even more. Driver would only be worth buttons.

To come up against a low bridge or width restriction, because you sat nav or atlas is out of date is one thing. To actually attempt to go under/through it, and tin can your load is quite another.

Surely that’s gross misconduct and grounds for dismissal if the firm didn’t think they were up to it??

[hitch]

run with the load flat
as a wide load

[m_attt]

hitch:
run with the load flat
as a wide load

but then they would “forget” they had a wide load and wipe out everything beside them

[jamiemufu]

There is ZERO excuse for hitting a low bridge. I mean ZERO. You cant “forget” you are carrying a high load. Furthermore, height indicators are in the cab. If its not set right, still drivers fault. Dont know your height? measure! You are responsible for the load, it is your job. As for the actual bridges. You can see them a ■■■■■■■ mile off on top of that they have nice big red signs displaying MORE THAN ONCE before you get to a point where you actually come to the bridge. Now yes we have all done it, taken wrong turn and faced a bridge. But we all passed our test, so why can’t we reverse,180 or at least hazards on and think of something else to do. I dont care if there is ■■■■ loads of traffic behind me. I am not going to even attempt to go under if I dont feel comfortable OR its lower than my cab indicators (Which you SHOULD check being a professional driver) OR it looks close. ■■■■■■■ common sense, I have NO sympathy for anyone who hits a bridge and gets “let go!” You deserve it. Absolute ■■■■■■■ mongs.

Now I came across a low bridge in Sandhurst just this week. Missed the sign posts (my tip was inbetween the bridge and the main road, so turned in before signs) and then took a wrong turn out of said site but saw it coming. Road works and traffic behind me. Still turned around, took about 40minutes but I did it. I would imagine thats what %99 of us would do. Now yes, human error I took wrong turn but I still saw the bridge, and knew it was not gonna go under.

You would not try fit your car through a gap the size of a moped, its the same thing. Revoke licenses for bridge strikes. Anyone who does not agree have obviously hit a bridge themselves, those of us who have not and never will can’t understand what goes through some peoples heads. Oh and the whole the signs are actually set lower. Why even risk it? If you hit a bridge and say well I was only 2" off, should still get your license revoked as clearly you were pushing your luck.

Rant over!

[robroy]

shep532:
Some interesting replies and not a lot of support for the drivers concerned!

When they hit a bridge with 18" difference it isn’t that they didn’t measure the load - they seem to have either forgotten they have anything on at all or just not seen the bridge and it appears the latter is the more common reason - hence thinking a bing-bong 200m before and then 100 metres etc might help jog their memories.

The last two times the driver diverted from the route he was told to take - there shouldn’t even have been any bridges to worry about and think this was down to standard car type sat nav use.
Training clearly doesn’t work. Sacking someone might make the boss feel better but doesn’t really help anyone.

Not a lot of support for the drivers concerned??
Seriously mate what do you expect?
Wtf do you/they, think we done pre sat nav days, (yeh really! we actually went down the road armed only with …wait for it…A map and… COMMON SENSE, note…you used to acquire it in the olden days as you grew up)
and it was drummed into you verbally to double check ALL low bridges.
Yeh verbally, not on some bloody training programme/academy BS, where getting your arse wiped for you is inclusive in the course.
As for your “drivers” (yeh right ) trying as you say to get 15foot loads under 14foot bridges you say training doesn’t work, the unarguable fact is mate YOU CAN’T EDUCATE PORK!
Get the useless ■■■■■■■■ out of the industry altogether before they end up killing somebody, because I for one am not keen on sharing the road with them while they are in charge of 44 tonnes.

[zanfta]

Tom Tom won’t help them!
Still need to keep your eyes on the road.
Even if you been driving this road for ages. Tom Tom didn’t know about these changes. Even on Google maps you still can see this!

That’s when you go to Keith

That’s when you go to Aberdeen.
P.s 14"6’ is actual and Tom Tom have been informed.