Lorry drivers requested to stop crashing....

[red_slr]

mp3manager said:

You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

Its actually the reverse IME.

Its a decent paid job these days, get your licence and CPC, get a few extra tickets, HIAB, hook loader, moffett and you can earn well over £25k. Lads on utilities doing grab work are passing £30k last year such is the demand. Artic drivers doing nights out or ADR can be even higher, £35-£40k.

This attracts people to the job and they think its easy, drive from A to B how hard can it be. They don't know how to load properly, secure their load, drive properly,,, but they have a D-CPC so must be ok right...?

As with most jobs it requires skill and experience. It used to be a job where you would start as a yard hand or C1 driver, then move up to C and eventually C+E but these days people just get their licence and jump straight into the deep end.

Agencies are swamping the market with part time and zero experience drivers. There is a massive shortage of drivers in the UK now so they are cashing in on it by getting people into trucks who have no desire to be there other than to earn a few quid.

[Meoricin]

red_slr said:

Its actually the reverse IME.

Its a decent paid job these days, get your licence and CPC, get a few extra tickets, HIAB, hook loader, moffett and you can earn well over £25k. Lads on utilities doing grab work are passing £30k last year such is the demand. Artic drivers doing nights out or ADR can be even higher, £35-£40k.

This attracts people to the job and they think its easy, drive from A to B how hard can it be. They don't know how to load properly, secure their load, drive properly,,, but they have a D-CPC so must be ok right...?

As with most jobs it requires skill and experience. It used to be a job where you would start as a yard hand or C1 driver, then move up to C and eventually C+E but these days people just get their licence and jump straight into the deep end.

Agencies are swamping the market with part time and zero experience drivers. There is a massive shortage of drivers in the UK now so they are cashing in on it by getting people into trucks who have no desire to be there other than to earn a few quid.

Read to me like he was criticising the designers of the signwork/warnings.

[Yipper]

The council should reshape the road (and drainage) and make it dip 2-6ft lower, so all vehicles can pass under the bridge. If they can reduce the overhead-crash rate to zero or near-zero (without flooding), it will probably pay for itself in saved accident-costs.

[Gareth1974]

Yipper said:

The council should reshape the road (and drainage) and make it dip 2-6ft lower, so all vehicles can pass under the bridge. If they can reduce the overhead-crash rate to zero or near-zero (without flooding), it will probably pay for itself in saved accident-costs.

There is already quite a dip at the bridge. The council don't pick up the costs for the accidents though, so they've not got much incentive to throw money at it.

[anonymous-user]

TwyRob said:

Dr Doofenshmirtz said:

Just tie a break line over the road a centimetre or so lower than the bridge height a few meters before the actual bridge - if a lorry breaks the line a big sign lights up saying 'Stop you dumb ass'.
I recon could make my painfully obvious solution for £100 and sell it to the council for £350'000.

There is something akin to this in Reading. A sensor triggers flashing signs to warn overheight vehicles to turn off at the junction before a low railway bridge.

Just about to post about this. They have these at Romsey too!

[tr7v8]

This one has nine separate signs & flashing lights & has still been hit 16 times in the last year!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7984527/E...

[Gareth1974]

Learn2MergeInTurn said:

TwyRob said:

Dr Doofenshmirtz said:

Just tie a break line over the road a centimetre or so lower than the bridge height a few meters before the actual bridge - if a lorry breaks the line a big sign lights up saying 'Stop you dumb ass'.
I recon could make my painfully obvious solution for £100 and sell it to the council for £350'000.

There is something akin to this in Reading. A sensor triggers flashing signs to warn overheight vehicles to turn off at the junction before a low railway bridge.

Just about to post about this. They have these at Romsey too!

They have one at the bridge in question!

[saaby93]

Gareth1974 said:

Yipper said:

The council should reshape the road (and drainage) and make it dip 2-6ft lower, so all vehicles can pass under the bridge. If they can reduce the overhead-crash rate to zero or near-zero (without flooding), it will probably pay for itself in saved accident-costs.

There is already quite a dip at the bridge. The council don't pick up the costs for the accidents though, so they've not got much incentive to throw money at it.

Wasnt there a note saying that Network rail had calculated the knock on costs at £800,000 per year

if so how much does it cost to lower the road approaches to the bridge, or raise the track bed?

[Gareth1974]

saaby93 said:

Gareth1974 said:

Yipper said:

The council should reshape the road (and drainage) and make it dip 2-6ft lower, so all vehicles can pass under the bridge. If they can reduce the overhead-crash rate to zero or near-zero (without flooding), it will probably pay for itself in saved accident-costs.

There is already quite a dip at the bridge. The council don't pick up the costs for the accidents though, so they've not got much incentive to throw money at it.

Wasnt there a note saying that Network rail had calculated the knock on costs at £800,000 per year

if so how much does it cost to lower the road approaches to the bridge, or raise the track bed?

To raise the track bed, you'd need to rebuild the bridge at a large cost, and gradually lift the track for some distance each side, again an expensive enterprise. As you say, Network Rail initially foot the bill (though aim to recover costs from the guilty party), so there's little incentive for the council to fund expensive road alterations.

[saaby93]

Gareth1974 said:

To raise the track bed, you'd need to rebuild the bridge at a large cost, and gradually lift the track for some distance each side, again an expensive enterprise. As you say, Network Rail initially foot the bill (though aim to recover costs from the guilty party), so there's little incentive for the council to fund expensive road alterations.

I know... but how much is 'large' to jack up the bridge centre and reballast the track?
If it's around £800,000, they've covered it in year one and afterwards theyre quids in

[KarlMac]

The truth is a better solution already exists and in is in use near me on the roads around Sherwood Forest.

Picture of a similar system, these are a few hundred yards either side of the bridge with turning points just after.

[Gareth1974]

saaby93 said:

Gareth1974 said:

To raise the track bed, you'd need to rebuild the bridge at a large cost, and gradually lift the track for some distance each side, again an expensive enterprise. As you say, Network Rail initially foot the bill (though aim to recover costs from the guilty party), so there's little incentive for the council to fund expensive road alterations.

I know... but how much is 'large' to jack up the bridge centre and reballast the track?
If it's around £800,000, they've covered it in year one and afterwards theyre quids in

A lot more than £800k I reckon, but equally I don't think that Network Rail are ultimately paying that much out, once costs are recovered from the insurers. The bridge itself tends not to get damaged, the protective beams usually do their job. It's the compensation payable to the train operators for delays that occur in period of time between the impact and an examiner checking all is ok that is costly part.

[Cliftonite]

One solution:

https://youtu.be/Dk9DjO-_rT8

[Blaster72]

eldar said:

mp3manager said:

Restricting the height of trailers would be a start but as usual the UK haulage industry are their own worst enemy.
They want bigger and longer trailers.

http://www.commercialmotor.com/news/eu-trailer-hei...

The trailer I pull is 16'2'' and they're truly awful things.

That is quite tall! How can a truck drive not know that their trailer is taller than the bridge gap?

Pulling various different trailers of different heights, same happens with the bus drivers when they take out a double decker instead of their usual single decker. No excuse but they're all human.

I've been in a box van at work where the driver had been driving normal transits all day and we had to move something big so took the box van. He drove straight into the security gate as he used the same lane we'd used all day instead of the high vehicle gate, have to say we stopped pretty quick

The real solution for low bridges that keep getting hit is to have a width restriction and tough luck for wagons that would fit under, they'll just have to use an alternate route too.

[hidetheelephants]

NickM450 said:

Bum on a seat and get the lorry emptied is all that seems to matter these days, I'm not surprised things like this are happening, same with the recent talk of banning drivers from using SatNavs.

No-one is proposing to ban drivers from using satnavs, just banning the use of satnavs not specifically tailored for HGVs(presumably with a low bridge database built in and flashing lights, bells and whistles when you're approaching one).

[g7jtk]

Muddle238 said:

This. It's no good having 4-inch high numbers mounted to the obstacle they're supposed to be guarding. You need bigger, clearer numbers displayed before the obstacle. I know they often have these signs at the beginnings of roads but the bridges in question can be miles away, vehicles can join further down etc

The picture on page two is what I had in mind

[berlintaxi]

Turn7 said:

mp3manager said:

You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

You mean "P?acisz orzeszki ziemne, mo?na dosta? si? ma?py."

Of course, 'cause a British driver never hit anything, dhead.

[smifffymoto]

This would easily be solved by applying a height limit for trailers like most of the other EU countries,4 metres.
Reducing working hours would also help so drivers get more time off in the passenger seat would also be a great help.
If you see a driver on Saturday evening it is quite possible he is coming to the end of an 84 hour week,not likely but possible.

[Derek Withers]

berlintaxi said:

Turn7 said:

mp3manager said:

You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

You mean "P?acisz orzeszki ziemne, mo?na dosta? si? ma?py."

Of course, 'cause a British driver never hit anything, dhead.

I worked in pallet haulage until very recently and the trucks were always getting knocks to bumpers and steps and reversing into stuff. All sorts of nationalities drove them to varying standards. One agency guy, who got his licence in the army, didn't even know how to uncouple the trailer and his reversing was shockingly bad. The worst driver for accidents was a British guy, ex army, who averaged about one a month. His best one was ignoring a sign to take deliveries to another entrance at a delivery. He drove through it anyway, then he ignored the height warning on site and tore the entire roof off the truck. Apparently he was only doing 5 miles an hour He also denied driving into a parked car despite the dash cam footage of it. That one got him fired.

[motco]

Turn7 said:

mp3manager said:

You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

You mean "P?acisz orzeszki ziemne, mo?na dosta? si? ma?py."

Did you drop your Scrabble set?