Winseer:
“VOSA hold back the traffic to spare the public seeing any blood” could be argued.
To be fair the only people who’d ‘see any blood’ are the sick zb’s who slow down and rubber neck for a detailed view of the scene rather than just looking where they are going etc and getting on with it as usual.
On Auto Renovations FB page.
After speaking to a mate just now, i now have some facts for you all the lorry was on the hard shoulder as i said he had stopped with a possible blow out after checking the tyres were ok the driver headed up the hard shoulder gaining speed to join the carriageway the vehicle its self is tracked and in the tracker the maximum speed the lorry got up to before the impact was 21mph and then stopped dead, yesterday the police measured the height of the digger arm and was found to be at 16’7" with the bridge still on the front of the trailer and the airbags on the trailer at full stretch on the axle straps, today once the bridge had been removed and the trailer had settled at running height the digger arm was measured again and was found to be 16’6, so as it states that all bridges on any motorway should be no lower than 16’6 unless stated. And as the driver had picked the digger and dumper up from the roadworks on the London bound section under junction 4 the lorry and load had passed under at least 4 other bridges in lane 1 before coming to this one and never touched any of them. These are facts and not opinion. Thanks for reading
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Washwipe:
On Auto Renovations FB page.After speaking to a mate just now, i now have some facts for you all the lorry was on the hard shoulder as i said he had stopped with a possible blow out after checking the tyres were ok the driver headed up the hard shoulder gaining speed to join the carriageway the vehicle its self is tracked and in the tracker the maximum speed the lorry got up to before the impact was 21mph and then stopped dead, yesterday the police measured the height of the digger arm and was found to be at 16’7" with the bridge still on the front of the trailer and the airbags on the trailer at full stretch on the axle straps, today once the bridge had been removed and the trailer had settled at running height the digger arm was measured again and was found to be 16’6, so as it states that all bridges on any motorway should be no lower than 16’6 unless stated. And as the driver had picked the digger and dumper up from the roadworks on the London bound section under junction 4 the lorry and load had passed under at least 4 other bridges in lane 1 before coming to this one and never touched any of them. These are facts and not opinion. Thanks for reading
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
I’m sure the picture I saw had hatched markings on the hard shoulder under the bridge.
Edit: scrub that, I’m thinking of the wrong accident.
Washwipe:
the digger arm was measured again and was found to be 16’6, so as it states that all bridges on any motorway should be no lower than 16’6 unless stated. the lorry and load had passed under at least 4 other bridges in lane 1 before coming to this one and never touched any of them. These are facts and not opinion.
What if all the other bridges and gantries were over 16’ 6 but not the bridge that got hit.IE if you want to clear 16’6 you’ll need to be running ‘under’ 16’6.It seems obvious that the bucket and digger arm realistically couldn’t travel in that position with the choice then being do whatever it takes to lower it to a more realistic practical level. 
You would have thought the airbags have a bit more range than 1 inch from traveling height to fully extended.
But if this is true. I think they’ll be a lot of suits sending people to measure bridges over the hard shoulder.
So the facts are…
The lorry hit the bridge.
It was doing 21mph.
The bridge fell down.
So if the lorry was 16’6" that means the bridge was lower than 16’6" which means it should’ve been marked accordingly.
Or the bridge did allow 16’6" clearance and the load was over 16’6" when it made contact and during that process was somehow bent or pushed down to 16’6".
In either case, a relatively low speed impact by something not secured very well and on wheels should not have brought the bridge crashing down to earth so easily.
The bridge was out of action as it was deemed unsafe, which begs the question, WTF was it still doing perched above a motorway?
i doubt that was loaded like it has ended up 
newmercman:
So the facts are…The lorry hit the bridge.
It was doing 21mph.
The bridge fell down.So if the lorry was 16’6" that means the bridge was lower than 16’6" which means it should’ve been marked accordingly.
Or the bridge did allow 16’6" clearance and the load was over 16’6" when it made contact and during that process was somehow bent or pushed down to 16’6".
In either case, a relatively low speed impact by something not secured very well and on wheels should not have brought the bridge crashing down to earth so easily.
The bridge was out of action as it was deemed unsafe, which begs the question, WTF was it still doing perched above a motorway?
Firstly not lower than 16’6 doesn’t mean higher than 16’6 and therefore doesn’t mean clearance for 16’6.Logically it only provides clearance for below 16’6.
Having said that the bridge to post mounting on the carriageway in question looks like a joke from day 1 compared to the other side.I think our garage and shed roof at home is supported and located better than that.In which case if your final sentence is correct that they knew it was an unsafe structure absolutely an accident waiting to happen and only a question of luck or time if not knocked down falling down. . 
Muckaway:
d4c24a:
would need to be running thenClearly the driver isn’t a proper low loader driver, D4…he’s closed the cab door.
What do you think of moving it with the bucket in face shovel position?
strange , perhaps he did not know how to work the quickhitch ? i would say it was loaded with the bucket flat , which would result in the boom / dipper being higher
newmercman:
The bridge was out of action as it was deemed unsafe, which begs the question, WTF was it still doing perched above a motorway?
Wasn’t it simply having the parapets replaced? The blue mesh is temporary fencing which is used when bridge parapets are being installed.
Carryfast:
Having said that the bridge to post mounting on the carriageway in question looks like a joke from day 1 compared to the other side.
The other side is cantilevered out and anchored at the abutment. It supported the section which was hit, which was simply resting between it and the other pier.
It is perfectly safe at supporting it’s own weight and the load it has to carry.
There are many footbridges on the motorway network where the central span rests in place like that, but most of a symmetrical design, although it not a design usually used now though.
Good old british humour, Former M20 Bridge for sale, spare or repair.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Former-M20-Motorway-Bridge-for-spare-or-repair-/232062347465?hash=item3607fe68c9:g:FJAAAOSwFc5Xwfya
Glen A9:
Carryfast:
Having said that the bridge to post mounting on the carriageway in question looks like a joke from day 1 compared to the other side.The other side is cantilevered out and anchored at the abutment. It supported the section which was hit, which was simply resting between it and the other pier.
It is perfectly safe at supporting it’s own weight and the load it has to carry.
There are many footbridges on the motorway network where the central span rests in place like that, but most of a symmetrical design, although it not a design usually used now though.
You would of thought a man as intelligent as CF would know that already 
Washwipe:
On Auto Renovations FB page.After speaking to a mate just now, i now have some facts for you all the lorry was on the hard shoulder as i said he had stopped with a possible blow out after checking the tyres were ok the driver headed up the hard shoulder gaining speed to join the carriageway the vehicle its self is tracked and in the tracker the maximum speed the lorry got up to before the impact was 21mph and then stopped dead, yesterday the police measured the height of the digger arm and was found to be at 16’7" with the bridge still on the front of the trailer and the airbags on the trailer at full stretch on the axle straps, today once the bridge had been removed and the trailer had settled at running height the digger arm was measured again and was found to be 16’6, so as it states that all bridges on any motorway should be no lower than 16’6 unless stated. And as the driver had picked the digger and dumper up from the roadworks on the London bound section under junction 4 the lorry and load had passed under at least 4 other bridges in lane 1 before coming to this one and never touched any of them. These are facts and not opinion. Thanks for reading
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Gutless MAN and DAF. If that bridge had fallen onto 2 x Scania they’d have hauled it at least a mile !
Sent from my X17 using Tapatalk
Munchkin:
Gutless MAN and DAF. If that bridge had fallen onto 2 x Scania they’d have hauled it at least a mile !
Only on the grounds that the fannies would be so hyped up with their V8 badges that they failed to notice the bleedin obvious - like they had just hit a bridge.
Nothing a bit of gaffer tape couldn’t have fixed. Typical VOSA over reaction.
Glen A9:
Carryfast:
Having said that the bridge to post mounting on the carriageway in question looks like a joke from day 1 compared to the other side.The other side is cantilevered out and anchored at the abutment. It supported the section which was hit, which was simply resting between it and the other pier.
It is perfectly safe at supporting it’s own weight and the load it has to carry.
There are many footbridges on the motorway network where the central span rests in place like that, but most of a symmetrical design, although it not a design usually used now though.
It’s obvious that the opposite post couldn’t support the whole structure with the opposite post in question being an equally essential support.In which case it at least looks like it needed to be a larger post in all dimensions.Providing enough room to allow the bridge to sit within a type of castellated cradle within the post.With the expansion joint that seems to have sheared being put on the verge side of the post not the road side.
Carryfast:
Glen A9:
Carryfast:
Having said that the bridge to post mounting on the carriageway in question looks like a joke from day 1 compared to the other side.The other side is cantilevered out and anchored at the abutment. It supported the section which was hit, which was simply resting between it and the other pier.
It is perfectly safe at supporting it’s own weight and the load it has to carry.
There are many footbridges on the motorway network where the central span rests in place like that, but most of a symmetrical design, although it not a design usually used now though.It’s obvious that the opposite post couldn’t support the whole structure with the opposite post in question being an equally essential support.In which case it at least looks like it needed to be a larger post in all dimensions.Providing enough room to allow the bridge to sit within a type of castellated cradle within the post.With the expansion joint that seems to have sheared being put on the verge side of the post not the road side.
You should email that idea to Nuttall’s, they would probably pay you a bounty for it.
From the FB post above it sounds like the company is defending their man or defending their insurance premiums
I’ve often wondered in complex insurance claims how does it all sort itself out, is done in a meeting face to face or over the phone or in emails.
