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.
The rest of the bridge was left there to get the road open as soon as possible for the bh weekend. It’s been stated that it will be removed in coming weeks.
I’ve already passed under that hanging bridge a half dozen times. We’re putting total faith in the notion that “it can’t possibly snap off there, and fall down itself”.
What I’m getting at here is the fact that “Police Silence” implies the driver has a case to answer, and a case is being built against them.
Carryfast’s notion that this bridge was the only one along the entire motorway at exactly 16’6" still doesn’t excuse the fact that this bridge was unmarked, even if it was only the bit over the hard shoulder that need be marked. You often see arched rail bridges with two or even three separate headroom signs…
How come the impact didn’t do more damage to the vehicle on the low loader that is supposed to have hit it?
How come there is a dent in the railings on TOP of the bridge corresponding to where the top bit of the digger would be? The dusty prong would appear to indicate that this was the point of impact on the digger. Funny how the thing then impacts the bridge in the railings part, a good two feet higher than the bottom edge of the bridge huh?
There are cameras all over the place looking up and down that section of motorway, near a junction and slip roads as it is.
If any of that footage exonerates the driver - it should already have been released!
How can you ‘prejudice a forthcoming case against the driver’ - when it would actually get them off the hook FFS?
I wouldn’t want this hanging over my head (no pun intended) whilst the total lack of good info about the bridge itself abounds…
The best pics out there are from some guy running a drone on a “Professional” level. Let’s hope he can expose something the authorities seem to be covering up here… The police have done a good job cleaning up quickly, but can ill afford the ongoing investigating operation, what with local government cuts and all.
Winseer:
We’re putting total faith in the notion that “it can’t possibly snap off there, and fall down itself”.
Providing it was undamaged by the initial impact it isn’t going to “snap off”. That end is cantilevered, it was holding up half the weight of the piece which now missing. Therefore it now has less weight on it than it originally did.
As for the rest if your waffle, this is real life, not a crime drama. The police aren’t going to release bits of evidence during an ongoing investigation just to keep armchair detectives entertained. They will be establishing whether an offence has taken place and whether to bring any prosecutions, if they do then that evidence will be presented to a court, not released to media in advance.
Winseer:
Carryfast’s notion that this bridge was the only one along the entire motorway at exactly 16’6" still doesn’t excuse the fact that this bridge was unmarked, even if it was only the bit over the hard shoulder that need be marked. You often see arched rail bridges with two or even three separate headroom signs…
The idea that the bridge in question was at the minimum required as opposed to others being higher would just be a ‘possible explanation’ for the circumstances as they appear.Bearing in mind meeting that minimum height doesn’t require any signs.‘If’ it’s shown that the bridge was lower than that minimum over the hard shoulder that’s a totally different matter.In which case as I said the reference point is still standing so far in that regard at the remains of the bridge at the post in question.
While if you’re right about a conspiracy to cover up an under height bridge they’ll obviously be keen to remove that evidence ASAP while keeping quiet about any measurements already obtained.On that note don’t be surprised if the remains of the bridge at the post in question suddenly disappear over night.
I won’t be surprised at all if the rest of the bridge suddenly disappears, with an announcement that “It was done last night, without fanfare”.
The suspect bit of the bridge however, is now down to a “stump” which might still provide some evidence as to the original height of the section over the hard shoulder in particular.
In my mind the investigation here should be very open and above board rather than “in camera” - as the entire safety of the public stands to be at risk - not only from say, “Isolated” incidents of this nature - but what if there are loads of bridges that have been worked on recently - that now fail basic safety protocol?
The blue and white contractor tape across the bridge in photos - implies that this bridge has been inspected of late. If such an “Inspection” didn’t flag up “Hey - this bridge needs a 15’11” sign!" for example - would have very dire implications for contractors responsible for any “inspections” and of course Councillors that might be “cutting corners” in the name of getting re-elected as the “party of lower costs”…
The Local MP Tugendhat’s response (on his own website) has been rather low-key so far… Can you imagine what sort of things would be being said if the local MP were someone like Two Jags for instance?
He recedes, hearing echos of “Full Public Inquiry” echoing in his ears…
Winseer:
I won’t be surprised at all if the rest of the bridge suddenly disappears, with an announcement that “It was done last night, without fanfare”.
The suspect bit of the bridge however, is now down to a “stump” which might still provide some evidence as to the original height of the section over the hard shoulder in particular.
In my mind the investigation here should be very open and above board rather than “in camera” - as the entire safety of the public stands to be at risk - not only from say, “Isolated” incidents of this nature - but what if there are loads of bridges that have been worked on recently - that now fail basic safety protocol?
The blue and white contractor tape across the bridge in photos - implies that this bridge has been inspected of late. If such an “Inspection” didn’t flag up “Hey - this bridge needs a 15’11” sign!" for example - would have very dire implications for contractors responsible for any “inspections” and of course Councillors that might be “cutting corners” in the name of getting re-elected as the “party of lower costs”…
The Local MP Tugendhat’s response (on his own website) has been rather low-key so far… Can you imagine what sort of things would be being said if the local MP were someone like Two Jags for instance?
He recedes, hearing echos of “Full Public Inquiry” echoing in his ears…
Realistically the whole case depends on an answer to the simple question was the vehicle over height or was the bridge too low which could probably be established from the remaining parts in question of the bridge still standing.‘If’ it’s the latter case it should obviously then be made public.
While so far it just seems a case of silence in that regard.With the bridge and obviously with it the relevant evidence,being stated for removal at the weekend ?.
It’s already a scandal that hard shoulders have been turned into live lanes in the interests of “saving costs” and of course “not upsetting local landowners who would have objected to a normal motorway widening”.
If it should turn out that a whole bunch of bridges around the entire country - are now dangerously unsigned below height - then there’s an even bigger scandal in the offing.
People have already been injured/killed as a direct result of this very unsafe “managed motorways” situation.
…Not to mention the HUGE drain on police and VOSA resources when lanes have to be shut down every time a vehicle breaks down in lane one…
Winseer:
It’s already a scandal that hard shoulders have been turned into live lanes in the interests of “saving costs” and of course “not upsetting local landowners who would have objected to a normal motorway widening”.
If it should turn out that a whole bunch of bridges around the entire country - are now dangerously unsigned below height - then there’s an even bigger scandal in the offing.
People have already been injured/killed as a direct result of this very unsafe “managed motorways” situation.
…Not to mention the HUGE drain on police and VOSA resources when lanes have to be shut down every time a vehicle breaks down in lane one…
To be fair it’s probably about time that we imposed a tougher height limit regime similar to that in Europe.
As for using hard shoulders as live lanes it seems to defeat the object of putting in a hard shoulder which is there to provide a place for broken down vehicles to stop without impeding traffic flow in the live lanes.The end result being another pointless overtaking lane in an ever increasingly strictly controlled speed environment which also has the potential to cause massive traffic disruption in the foreseeable and likely event of break downs.
As for motorway widening see above.What’s the point of three or more over taking lanes when the max speed is still only 56 mph or 70 mph respectively and lanes 2/3/4 or more can only be used in the case of overtaking not because any particular lane has a lot of traffic in it.IE you can only use the extra lanes to go faster than the lane/s to the left not because the lanes have a lot of traffic using them.In which case it would be better to improve the rest of the road network.Than to keep on pointlessly widening motorways.Which have reached the point of being an over regulated liability anyway.In which any arguable time savings are more than cancelled out by unavoidable traffic chaos when they inevitably get hit by the latest accident/lane closures/road works etc etc.In which the chance of getting caught between junctions for hours isn’t compensated for by the small gains in average speeds if/when they are ever running perfectly.While adding more lanes won’t change that fact.
While,unless we want to live in an over developed sea of concrete,there obviously needs to be a point where we say enough.The South East probably already having reached that point whether it’s housing estates,roads,rail lines,or airports.
As for the comments on here re conspiracy theory etc etc.
It has been posted on the other thread that the vehicle had picked the digger up further down the motorway and had passed under several bridges previously.
The vehicle had stopped again on the hard shoulder with a suspected blowout/puncture, after checking the driver was building his speed up on the hard shoulder to rejoin the motorway, and the vehicles speed as shown by the tracker system was 21mph when it hit the bridge and came to a complete stop.
The digger was measured allegedly to be 16’7" with the piece of bridge still on top of it, after the bridge was removed the vehicle was allowed to settle on it’s suspension and was measured again and found to be 16’6" the maximum permitted height.
Supposedly came from someone who has a friend that works there or something like that and has known this friend for 45 years or something like that.
