eagerbeaver:
Yep, you can clearly see the impact point where the railings are bent into a ‘v’ shape.
And what looks like concrete dust on the front of that boom.
moomooland:
rearaxle:
Looking at this pic it appears the digger is nowhere near the bridgeI think there is very little doubt whatsoever that he has hit the bridge looking at this angle.
Hope they are well insured this will cost millions.
0
Blimey if that’s right I bet someone is thinking why didn’t we remove the bucket. 
Having said that I’m not sure even allowing for camera angles that shows the load as being higher than the bridge base line.
no way did the low loader with digger knock the bridge down yes railing is dented in v shape and dust on boom but the force would have knocked the digger of the back of the loader it aint even against the ramps looks to me he went to hard shoulder as bridge was collapsing and hes not the cause of the collapse,if he had been to high for t hat bridge am sure he would have hit more than one on way down m20,but all involved very lucky get them lotto numbers on
Based on the other thread about this, it might be the type of bridge which caused it to fall so easily (bit worrying). Seems the strength is on the other side of the bridge and this side is mostly just sitting there held in my gravity and weight.
trevHCS:
Based on the other thread about this, it might be the type of bridge which caused it to fall so easily (bit worrying). Seems the strength is on the other side of the bridge and this side is mostly just sitting there held in my gravity and weight.
Most bridges are built like that, as in not fixed to anything, to allow for expansion, even most of dartford bridge is only held up by gravity.
Have heard many have expansion slots built into them to allow for movement and heat, but will take a closer look at ones I pass under from now on. So essentially any bridge hit in the wrong place could do the same thing? I assume it’s more likely with the thinner bridges like this rather than road bridges with more structure?
After shock from Italy? Just a thought.
I read a comment on faceache that something fell of a lorry which caused the truck driver with the digger that hit it to swerve onto the hard shoulder, there was also a suggestion of the truck hitting something large that caused the vehicle to jump up causing the digger arm to hit the bridge.
Obviously out of 100 eyewitnesses nearly everyone will tell you a different story.
I doubt anything big enough being hit would alter the height of the truck enough and you can’t see any damage to the front of the truck that hit the bridge to go with that theory.
However the truck moving suddenly onto the hard shoulder and the bridge being slightly lower seems plausible as an explanation, as said though the bridge should be at least 16’6" high as there wasn’t any height warnings on the bridge as far as I can tell. But the bridge should have been 16’6" at least at it’s lowest part, so if it was lower on that side then was an accident waiting to happen. If so that part of the bridge should have been marked with height and warnings.
It also has been undergoing work on it for quite some time so you have to question it’s structural integrity as to a possible reason why it collapsed rather than just damaged and still standing or sagged.
I do think that maybe the first hit has damaged the bridge and made it sag, and the second truck cab hitting it has brought it down, the bridge has demolished the trailer and there is damage to the cab of the box trailer, if the bridge had landed on the top of the cab if would have demolished the cab in my opinion and the driver would not be here to tell the story most likely.
That is my best guess anyway.
Either way a very lucky escape for everyone involved, it could have been so much worse.
Isn’t the general consensus at this point:-
“The bridge was lower at the moment of first impact than it should have been. It was most likely already sagging down at the moment of impact.”
Whoever built/maintained the bridge is about to be swimming in effluent. The Proverbial Canoe isn’t just without an oar - the bung is out, and has been lost as well.
Winseer:
Isn’t the general consensus at this point:-“The bridge was lower at the moment of first impact than it should have been. It was most likely already sagging down at the moment of impact.”
The fact that the law seem to have acknowledged that the bridge was hit by the digger.But not whether it was the bridge that was too low,as opposed to the load too high,nor seem to have arrested the driver on suspicion of dangerous driving, might be a clue in that rgard. 
How often are truck drivers arrested after hitting a bridge with no fatalities?
weeto:
How often are truck drivers arrested after hitting a bridge with no fatalities?
I’d guess the law might draw the line at using the hard shoulder of a motorway,to crawl slowly under a bridge in the knowledge that the load is over minimum height.Then in the process hitting it and knocking it off its support post causing it to collapse across the motorway resulting in multiple collisions caused by the falling wreckage resulting in an injury.Bearing in mind that the charge of dangerous driving doesn’t mean fatalities that’s causing death by dangerous driving which is obviously much more serious.
It isn’t always necessary to arrest someone straight away. The police will have no doubt taken a statement from the driver of the plant truck at the scene, they then may wish to look at all the evidence before deciding what offence may have been committed.
They could then arrest the driver at a later date (by inviting them to attend a police station) and interviewing them under caution then.
What’s the betting that this bridge won’t be fixed at all, because only some better-off folk actually bother to use it…?
…like whoever lives in that house with the swimming pool you see in the overhead pics… 
They’ll call it the “Brexit Bridge” in the council meetings, and kick it in the long grass dunked in superglue.
^^
That will depend on who has to pay for it and what influence they have to wriggle out of it. There is also the consideration that when the land to build the Motorway was originally purchased the contract probably included the commitment to construct and maintain the bridge.
Edit: Having had a look on street view, East Street East Malling was blocked off by the construction of the M’way.
Carryfast:
weeto:
How often are truck drivers arrested after hitting a bridge with no fatalities?I’d guess the law might draw the line at using the hard shoulder of a motorway,to crawl slowly under a bridge in the knowledge that the load is over minimum height.Then in the process hitting it and knocking it off its support post causing it to collapse across the motorway resulting in multiple collisions caused by the falling wreckage resulting in an injury.Bearing in mind that the charge of dangerous driving doesn’t mean fatalities that’s causing death by dangerous driving which is obviously much more serious.
I can’t seriously see this being the case, the bridge isn’t marked up with a height so assume it to be 16’6", if the driver thought he might be over height then he would have to do this to all bridges he passed under!
Where this company could come unstuck is that 4.95 metres or 16’ 3" ish (it’s 16.24 etc) is the recommended max height limit for goods vehicle, phrases like wherever possible, best practice usually come up.
Although even at this height it may still have got clobbered or skimmed at best.
Then we could look at how it was loaded, well badly springs to mind perhaps foot down Friday, rushing, bank holiday coming up etc…
Now there’s the bridge itself which I would say is around 16’ ish over the hard shoulder so it should be marked.
Looked at Kent999 calculation of around 15’8 but based on the perception angle a + 4" margin of error is present using my advanced maths calculations and making stuff up formulae.
So will the company be let off, well I reckon yes as although they haven’t followed best practice and made a lashup of loading the bloody stuff it could be argued the bridge wouldn’t have been hit if it was correctly marked.
Not a slam dunk though by any means.
Things like a correct in cab height indicator would help.
Bet the driver wished he hadn’t stopped on the HS for a ■■■■. 
Dipper_Dave:
Where this company could come unstuck is that 4.95 metres or 16’ 3" ish (it’s 16.24 etc) is the recommended max height limit for goods vehicle, phrases like wherever possible, best practice usually come up.
Although even at this height it may still have got clobbered or skimmed at best.Then we could look at how it was loaded, well badly springs to mind perhaps foot down Friday, rushing, bank holiday coming up etc…
Now there’s the bridge itself which I would say is around 16’ ish over the hard shoulder so it should be marked.
Firstly it’s obvious that a 16’6 load won’t provide ‘clearance’ for a 16’6 ‘minimum’ height bridge and realistically anything over 16’ is playing with fire in terms of absolute maximum and around 15’ in terms of general practicality.
As for the bridge the height measurement it would still be there by reference to the remaining base line at the post.But strangely just silence in that regard so far.
Conspiracy Theory Hat on here:
This “Incident” would result in lost bigwig jobs, millions forked out in compensation, and of course the police/engineers bill is going to be substantial regardless of what happens next.
If the plant driver is NOT at fault, then this is more likely to be an unacceptable outcome for those suits most affected by the “Embarrassment” factor here.
Since the Police investigation is ultimately going to be funded by the local authority most likely to be “losing out”, should the Plant driver be exonerated “The bridge was too low for it to be unmarked!”
they. the investigators - have been ordered “On no circumstances is the driver to be found “not at fault” - because that makes US - the authority at fault, and our jobs will be on the line”.
Blaming the driver is more difficult if they are an immigrant BUT as long as the company has ample personal liability insurance in place - it will be considered the “least damaging” option to blame the driver on whatever pretext the authorities wish.
Has anyone noticed that there is strangely NO Motorway Camera footage relating to the run-up to this incident?
Not even a picture of the truck trundling along a mile before the bridge, which could be used to “Verify the overheight” being alleged here?
Very suspicious indeed. Such footage would easily get the driver off the hook - should it show that the low-loader and load were nowhere near 16’6" and should not have knocked the bridge off it’s cradle regardless of it impacting on the hard shoulder!
Is it known that the driver has been arrested? On what charge?
Is the transport company also being investigated at this time?
Can we have the follow-up to the injured motorcyclist and the family in the car alongside who’s lives were saved by the white trailer driver’s quick thinking?
The public are being told and allowed to believe that this is another “It’s all the driver’s fault” which will prejudice any legal action taken against him and the employing company. That would be unfair enough if he were bang-to-rights - but we’re all supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in this country - especially now we’re supposed to also be going back to our own magna carta/bill of rights trumping the former daft EU legislations which will protect faceless bureaucrats from the obvious backlash that would come from “Officialdom” being actually at fault here.
Why wasn’t the rest of the bridge already demolished when it pretty much has to be at this point?
The transport company might be negotiated to ‘accept’ blame - if promised in advance that it’ll all be covered by their insurance. SO it’ll be the Insurance company who’ll end up as “End Victims” in this scenario, effectively defrauded by the local authorities who don’t want to lose their jobs for cocking up by rubber-stamping the building of the low end of this footbridge too damned low in the first place, just waiting for a below 16’6" but high enough load to strike the bridge at it’s lowest point - over the hard shoulder.
Disclaimer:
Just a theory folks, and a conspiracy theory of course coming from me at that.
The Socratic paradox comes to mind:
To paraphrase, “All I know - is that I know nothing.”
It’s for the public to be asking such questions. I’m a member of the public - I’ll ask then. 
Winseer:
Conspiracy Theory Hat on here:This “Incident” would result in lost bigwig jobs, millions forked out in compensation, and of course the police/engineers bill is going to be substantial regardless of what happens next.
If the plant driver is NOT at fault, then this is more likely to be an unacceptable outcome for those suits most affected by the “Embarrassment” factor here.
Since the Police investigation is ultimately going to be funded by the local authority most likely to be “losing out”, should the Plant driver be exonerated “The bridge was too low for it to be unmarked!”
they. the investigators - have been ordered “On no circumstances is the driver to be found “not at fault” - because that makes US - the authority at fault, and our jobs will be on the line”.
Blaming the driver is more difficult if they are an immigrant BUT as long as the company has ample personal liability insurance in place - it will be considered the “least damaging” option to blame the driver on whatever pretext the authorities wish.Has anyone noticed that there is strangely NO Motorway Camera footage relating to the run-up to this incident?
Not even a picture of the truck trundling along a mile before the bridge, which could be used to “Verify the overheight” being alleged here?
Very suspicious indeed. Such footage would easily get the driver off the hook - should it show that the low-loader and load were nowhere near 16’6" and should not have knocked the bridge off it’s cradle regardless of it impacting on the hard shoulder!Is it known that the driver has been arrested? On what charge?
Is the transport company also being investigated at this time?
Can we have the follow-up to the injured motorcyclist and the family in the car alongside who’s lives were saved by the white trailer driver’s quick thinking?
The public are being told and allowed to believe that this is another “It’s all the driver’s fault” which will prejudice any legal action taken against him and the employing company. That would be unfair enough if he were bang-to-rights - but we’re all supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in this country - especially now we’re supposed to also be going back to our own magna carta/bill of rights trumping the former daft EU legislations which will protect faceless bureaucrats from the obvious backlash that would come from “Officialdom” being actually at fault here.Why wasn’t the rest of the bridge already demolished when it pretty much has to be at this point?
The transport company might be negotiated to ‘accept’ blame - if promised in advance that it’ll all be covered by their insurance. SO it’ll be the Insurance company who’ll end up as “End Victims” in this scenario, effectively defrauded by the local authorities who don’t want to lose their jobs for cocking up by rubber-stamping the building of the low end of this footbridge too damned low in the first place, just waiting for a below 16’6" but high enough load to strike the bridge at it’s lowest point - over the hard shoulder.
Disclaimer:
Just a theory folks, and a conspiracy theory of course coming from me at that.
The Socratic paradox comes to mind:
To paraphrase, “All I know - is that I know nothing.”It’s for the public to be asking such questions. I’m a member of the public - I’ll ask then.
Firstly if it was a conspiracy along those lines the vehicle’s insurer would have to be ‘in on it’.IE at this point the road surface to bridge base line measurement should be known and obtainable from the remaining standing parts at the post.While if it isn’t that would/should obviously be a pre requisite before the insurer even started to consider any claim.
While we’ve got some anecdotal unconfirmed reference to the police having measured the vehicle’s/load height at a convenient 16’6 with nothing to dispute it so far but nothing to confirm it either.However what we also know is that the thing never hit any of the other bridges/gantries it went under.The obvious suggestion being that every other bridge on the M20 is higher than the motorway minimum except this one.Which all seems a bit of a co incidence.Having said all that the thing does look bleedin high,when referenced against people standing by the side of it,in the daily mail photo.With the size and position of the bucket and its arm relative to the load deck seeming to be the deal breaker.
As for the bridge being ‘knocked off its cradle’ that’s just it there doesn’t seem to have been any ‘cradle’ in the form of a vertical version of something along these lines.In this case with the bridge just seeming to be more or less just resting on the flat top of the,arguably too small for the job,post.Possibly with the added weakness of an expansion joint at its road side of the post.
