drover:
Carryfast:
drover:
Driver was obviously day dreaming as he doesn’t even appear to try to slow down
Also fooled by the van stopped under the bridge and the incorrect advanced warnings on East Street related to a non arched bridge. 
s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/04 … ae8588.jpg
goo.gl/maps/5wGvf6PZCkEzssz37
goo.gl/maps/PrrUymfCZsmSa56
There’s a clear sign for an arched bridge 50ft from it though…
All of the advanced warnings need to show an arched bridge not arbitrarily and haphazardly marked as both straight and arched.
The truck driver was a muppet but that doesn’t make the van driver and the sign planners less so.
I’d also be surprised if there is actually 15’6’’ of clearance across the marked width.
As I said I regularly had to cross that rail line from Epsom to Ewell with high loads and I never went under that bridge.There’s no need to and the road signs should dissuade drivers from even trying to use it.Not attract them with stupid signage suggesting it’s a straight 15’6’’ bridge which suddenly changes to arched just before it.
It’s clear that the truck driver thought it was a straight bridge for whatever reason.The signs and the stopped van might at least explain some of that.
Carryfast:
blue estate:
LazyDriver:
drover:
Discover Popular Videos | Facebook
Good find! So the sign on the back of the trailer gives sight to the final outcome… 
My thoughts as well
Stop with those negative waves.It’s a great big beautiful 15’6’’ bridge the signs on East Street said so and this truck is absolutely definitely gonna go under it.How high is that van. 
You missed both the location of the sign in question and therefore the point…
stinkinunrich:
TikTok - Make Your Day
This bellend sums up what is wrong with drivers always assuming what went wrong without seeing the full picture.
Well I bet he feels a right plonker after that
What a thick muppet , that has got to be dangerous driving, sentencing guidelines are two years custody and ban then retake the driving test , no excuses for that one .
LazyDriver:
Carryfast:
Stop with those negative waves.It’s a great big beautiful 15’6’’ bridge the signs on East Street said so and this truck is absolutely definitely gonna go under it.How high is that van.
You missed both the location of the sign in question and therefore the point…
What ‘sign’ have I missed.The advanced warning signs say that it’s a 15’6’’ straight bridge which suddenly change to arched bridge close to it.
The whole issue of quoting maximum headroom, in the case of advanced warning of arched bridges, is a can of worms anyway.
That bridge at least should be stated as 13’ max on advanced warnings.There’s no need for any high vehicle to use it when there are numerous more suitable options to cross that rail line.
Carryfast:
drover:
Carryfast:
drover:
Driver was obviously day dreaming as he doesn’t even appear to try to slow down
Also fooled by the van stopped under the bridge and the incorrect advanced warnings on East Street related to a non arched bridge.
s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/04 … ae8588.jpg
goo.gl/maps/5wGvf6PZCkEzssz37
goo.gl/maps/PrrUymfCZsmSa56
There’s a clear sign for an arched bridge 50ft from it though…
All of the advanced warnings need to show an arched bridge not arbitrarily and haphazardly marked as both straight and arched.
The truck driver was a muppet but that doesn’t make the van driver and the sign planners less so.
I’d also be surprised if there is actually 15’6’’ of clearance across the marked width.
As I said I regularly had to cross that rail line from Epsom to Ewell with high loads and I never went under that bridge.There’s no need to and the road signs should dissuade drivers from even trying to use it.Not attract them with stupid signage suggesting it’s a straight 15’6’’ bridge which suddenly changes to arched just before it.
It’s clear that the truck driver thought it was a straight bridge for whatever reason.The signs and the stopped van might at least explain some of that.
15,6 is still 15,6 regardless of whether it’s arched or not, you can still get under it if your under 15,6.
I agree the signage certainly doesn’t help, but Bottom line is the professional driver failed to pay due care and attention and we see the results
As for the van well he hasn’t done anything wrong at all, he’s just waiting in traffic!
End of the day the muppet should have seen it was an arch bridge and the stopped until the way was clear to proceed.
I however do feel it is time the outdated low bridges are remodelled to accept clearance of 16ft 6inch. We can find 100 billion pounds to ■■■■■ on a new rail line but peanuts to sort out bridge strike
msgyorkie:
End of the day the muppet should have seen it was an arch bridge and the stopped until the way was clear to proceed.
I however do feel it is time the outdated low bridges are remodelled to accept clearance of 16ft 6inch. We can find 100 billion pounds to ■■■■■ on a new rail line but peanuts to sort out bridge strike
Or people can just pay attention to the road, signs, vehicle etc and act like the professional that we claim to be?
Domt get me wrong, I’m sure we’ve all dropped a clanger now and then. But there’s a small clanger and then there’s something like this.
msgyorkie:
End of the day the muppet should have seen it was an arch bridge and the stopped until the way was clear to proceed.
I however do feel it is time the outdated low bridges are remodelled to accept clearance of 16ft 6inch. We can find 100 billion pounds to ■■■■■ on a new rail line but peanuts to sort out bridge strike
Alternatively don’t employ blind muppets 
Or…do what the rest of Europe does and make all trailers 4 metres maximum, more driving jobs for the driver shortage (allegedly)
And more work for trailer manufacturers 
Would be cheaper than “remodelling” bridges
Might drive up wages if there genuinely isn’t enough drivers for the lorries…although it wouldn’t please the tree huggers having more on the road
All drivers that crash in to bridges should be sent to the Traffic Commissioners office for tea and biscuits to plead to the TC why they should not remove their license for life .
toonsy:
msgyorkie:
End of the day the muppet should have seen it was an arch bridge and the stopped until the way was clear to proceed.
I however do feel it is time the outdated low bridges are remodelled to accept clearance of 16ft 6inch. We can find 100 billion pounds to ■■■■■ on a new rail line but peanuts to sort out bridge strike
Or people can just pay attention to the road, signs, vehicle etc and act like the professional that we claim to be?
Domt get me wrong, I’m sure we’ve all dropped a clanger now and then. But there’s a small clanger and then there’s something like this.
I know what you are saying bud, but at the end of the day the job has been dumbed down to enable Mr ■■■■■■ to be employed on National Minimum Wage.
As long as we have these low bridges they are going to get hit.
It’s no good saying “pay attention” as there are way too many clowns with the ticket. This will never change.
Carryfast:
drover:
Carryfast:
drover:
Driver was obviously day dreaming as he doesn’t even appear to try to slow down
Also fooled by the van stopped under the bridge and the incorrect advanced warnings on East Street related to a non arched bridge.
s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/04 … ae8588.jpg
goo.gl/maps/5wGvf6PZCkEzssz37
goo.gl/maps/PrrUymfCZsmSa56
There’s a clear sign for an arched bridge 50ft from it though…
All of the advanced warnings need to show an arched bridge not arbitrarily and haphazardly marked as both straight and arched.
The truck driver was a muppet but that doesn’t make the van driver and the sign planners less so.
I’d also be surprised if there is actually 15’6’’ of clearance across the marked width.
As I said I regularly had to cross that rail line from Epsom to Ewell with high loads and I never went under that bridge.There’s no need to and the road signs should dissuade drivers from even trying to use it.Not attract them with stupid signage suggesting it’s a straight 15’6’’ bridge which suddenly changes to arched just before it.
It’s clear that the truck driver thought it was a straight bridge for whatever reason.The signs and the stopped van might at least explain some of that.
Oh do be quiet ffs. The bridge markings are fine and arch bridges have been marked like that since the dawn on time. Everyone else manages to get from one side to the other just fine which indicates that the markings are more than adequate. Stop making excuses and making yourself look foolish yet again. Do you ever have a day off?
Bridge bashers already enforce the image of a typical lorry driver to the general public, to be thick as mud when they are unaware of their trailer height even though it should be displayed inside their cab.
drover:
Carryfast:
15,6 is still 15,6 regardless of whether it’s arched or not, you can still get under it if your under 15,6.
As for the van well he hasn’t done anything wrong at all, he’s just waiting in traffic!
^ That was exactly the thinking of both the truck driver and the van driver.The rest is history. 
Why would anyone want to take an over 13’ high truck under that particular bridge anyway bearing in mind all the far more suitable and safer alternatives.
