Bridge collapse on M20
Discussion
saaby93 said:
DAVEVO9 said:
Bit of an update..
Taken off trucknet.com
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
Depends whether height over the hard shoulder is allowed to be lower.Taken off trucknet.com
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
The pictures of the end of the jib that struck the bridge show marks that are quite a lot lower than the top of the jib, several inches lower in fact.
The bridge is at fault, even more so if the height was not marked clearly as required if its 16.6 or lower.
If the bridge was 16.6 and the digger was 16.6 this would have been a scrape on the underside of the bridge and a scratch on the top od the digger arm.
Nice to see the driver secured the load well, even after a massive impact the digger stayed put and did not come loose or fall off.
Remarkable, if true, for the issue not to have arisen earlier in the life of that bridge. It's not like it is a road less travelled by HGVs.
The physics involved is interesting too. That many tonnes travelling at that relatively low speed tapped that much mass that distance while creating that little damage (to the truck and load). Do it again so I can watch, please!
The physics involved is interesting too. That many tonnes travelling at that relatively low speed tapped that much mass that distance while creating that little damage (to the truck and load). Do it again so I can watch, please!
scenario8 said:
Remarkable, if true, for the issue not to have arisen earlier in the life of that bridge. It's not like it is a road less travelled by HGVs.
The physics involved is interesting too. That many tonnes travelling at that relatively low speed tapped that much mass that distance while creating that little damage (to the truck and load). Do it again so I can watch, please!
There were a fairly unique set of events to cause this. It would seem the only reason it had not previously occurred is that no HGV ever traveled under the bridge whilst on the hard shoulder.The physics involved is interesting too. That many tonnes travelling at that relatively low speed tapped that much mass that distance while creating that little damage (to the truck and load). Do it again so I can watch, please!
As for the physics and the damage to the excavator being so slight, it did fox me at first, because every other instance of "digger on low loader hits bridge" looks something like this:
or this:
Severe damage to the excavator, and a clear 'contact' mark on the bridge itself. Loaded in a controlled way, the box-section boom arm on a digger is extremely strong and this took the load very well.
SilverSpur said:
Immovable object that bridge, probably weights 5000 tonnes and is security attached to the ground, and is reinforced in order to carry traffic. not some lightweight 300 tonne pedestrian bridge that's in two sections already and dos the have to carry weight.
Did the pedestrian bridge have anything in its mountings to prevent it being tapped sideways?There may have been nothing as they might prefer the section to move rather than topple the whole bridge
CAPP0 said:
DAVEVO9 said:
Bit of an update..
Taken off trucknet.com
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
Kinda stacks up with what I said/asked yesterday evening.Taken off trucknet.com
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
I think it's a grey area, the truck isn't dramatically badly loaded. How exactly does a driver know if a truck is loaded to 16'6" anyway? Wonder how many special instruments the police have had to use to determine its exact load height? To the inch?
And what exactly was the height of the bridge at the impact point?
All seems to be very marginal to me.
Let's just call it an unfortunate accident due to unforeseen circumstances, be thankful it didn't involve a bus load of school kids and a petrol tanker, learn from it, check all other bridges, help the injured motorcyclist.
And what exactly was the height of the bridge at the impact point?
All seems to be very marginal to me.
Let's just call it an unfortunate accident due to unforeseen circumstances, be thankful it didn't involve a bus load of school kids and a petrol tanker, learn from it, check all other bridges, help the injured motorcyclist.
Well to the letter of the law, it's not the truck driver's fault now. The police appear to have satisfied themselves that the load did not breach guidelines, therefore the only conclusion is that the bridge does not meet spec. That the main traffic carriageways were in spec is incidental, this truck just happened to need to use the hard shoulder and should have been able to do so.
All IMHO of course.
All IMHO of course.
Digga said:
Well to the letter of the law, it's not the truck driver's fault now. The police appear to have satisfied themselves that the load did not breach guidelines, therefore the only conclusion is that the bridge does not meet spec. That the main traffic carriageways were in spec is incidental, this truck just happened to need to use the hard shoulder and should have been able to do so.
All IMHO of course.
I agree with all of that Digga.All IMHO of course.
Ultimately, if 16'6" (or 5m?) is the minimum height of motorway bridges, it doesn't seem at all sensible to run with a 16'6" load height.
The trailer will move about under motion, roads get resurfaced and repaired, a concrete bridge would have some amount of temperature-related expansion .. etc
Think the driver will be on the hook for this
The trailer will move about under motion, roads get resurfaced and repaired, a concrete bridge would have some amount of temperature-related expansion .. etc
Think the driver will be on the hook for this
essayer said:
Ultimately, if 16'6" (or 5m?) is the minimum height of motorway bridges, it doesn't seem at all sensible to run with a 16'6" load height.
The trailer will move about under motion, roads get resurfaced and repaired, a concrete bridge would have some amount of temperature-related expansion .. etc
Think the driver will be on the hook for this
I agree re the wisdom of running with a load 16'6 high, however if the law states that bridges below that must be signed, and here is a bridge that is lower and not a warning sign in sight...The trailer will move about under motion, roads get resurfaced and repaired, a concrete bridge would have some amount of temperature-related expansion .. etc
Think the driver will be on the hook for this
There are road markings that seem to indicate vehicles must not pass on the hard shoulder under the bridge, but I wonder how much advance warning there is of those?
heebeegeetee said:
I agree re the wisdom of running with a load 16'6 high, however if the law states that bridges below that must be signed, and here is a bridge that is lower and not a warning sign in sight...
There are road markings that seem to indicate vehicles must not pass on the hard shoulder under the bridge, but I wonder how much advance warning there is of those?
Those road markings are on the opposite carriageway and also just the end of the fourth lane rather than avoid bridge markings?There are road markings that seem to indicate vehicles must not pass on the hard shoulder under the bridge, but I wonder how much advance warning there is of those?
If it proves to be true the load was at 16'6 max then it was pushing things to the limit but Motorway bridge minimum heights before signage seems to be a very grey area. I've seen 16'3, 16'6, 16'9....
There are other low looking bridges he must have passed under so I would have those measured (and checked for recent damage) in lane one and hard shoulder and see what they are.
As I understand it, only bridges 16' 3" or lower require a warning
See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Elysium said:
CAPP0 said:
DAVEVO9 said:
Bit of an update..
Taken off trucknet.com
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
Kinda stacks up with what I said/asked yesterday evening.Taken off trucknet.com
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
rolando said:
As I understand it, only bridges 16' 3" or lower require a warning
See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
The question I would ask: Is that leaflet only talking about non-Motorway bridges?See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
essayer said:
Ultimately, if 16'6" (or 5m?) is the minimum height of motorway bridges, it doesn't seem at all sensible to run with a 16'6" load height.
The trailer will move about under motion, roads get resurfaced and repaired, a concrete bridge would have some amount of temperature-related expansion .. etc
Think the driver will be on the hook for this
5.1m isn't it? So 1" of clearance at a minimum. If you are under the stated limit, you would reasonably expect to be able to travel under a bridge without it falling on you. Perhaps the guidance should be changed to you are not allowed to take a vehicle exceeding 15'6 on the roads (leaving a minimum of a foot of clearance).The trailer will move about under motion, roads get resurfaced and repaired, a concrete bridge would have some amount of temperature-related expansion .. etc
Think the driver will be on the hook for this
You also have the problem of, bridges being a common site on motorways and if you end up approach one smaller then your load, you are very limited on what you can do to resolve the situation.
Edited by Trif on Wednesday 31st August 15:27
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff