Open Access
Something to say? This is your platform.
As a lifelong rail enthusiast and also a coach driver, I read the
Comment on bridge strikes ( RAIL 865) with interest.
Most of my colleagues and I are completely baffled as to how these accidents keep happening. As you point out, it is a legal requirement for the vehicle height to be displayed in the cab area, where it is clearly visible to the driver. While accepting that lorry heights will vary according to load, it surely can’t be difficult to check this before starting the journey.
No coach driver I know would dream of starting a journey that they are unfamiliar with without checking the route beforehand. This is usually done using a combination of road atlas, Google maps and street view, so that junctions and turns can be assessed (coaches don’t bend in the middle!) and bridge heights checked - if necessary, using the camera view to actually zoom in on the bridge height sign!
All this is regarded as part of the job, so it amazes me that lorry drivers don’t see it the same way. However, I suspect that this checking is often done in the driver’s own time, at home. Lorry drivers are reluctant to give up their own time and so fall back on simply switching on their sat-nav at the start of the journey.
It is also a pity that the aftermath of these strikes is never reported. What was the driver’s excuse? Was he following sat-nav? What does the company have to say?
Network Rail might do itself a favour by publishing follow-up stories regarding these incidents, and perhaps naming and shaming the companies concerned. This just might have the effect of making the road haulage industry take more steps to stop bridge strikes. Paul Putnam, Pewsey I read with great interest the
Comment about the damage and danger caused by vehicles hitting bridges.
You say it would be difficult to prosecute the driver for dangerous driving. However, driving without due care and attention could be the charge. In addition, a claim for negligence could be made - this could be brought as ‘vicarious liability’.
It would not be worthwhile suing the driver, as they were an agent of the bus company or the HGV company, but as the accident occurred in the course of their duties, the company could be sued.
The test for negligence is the ‘but for’ test. ‘But for’ the driver having taken that route, would the damage have occurred? The driver ought to have reasonably known what he was doing was incorrect. Bus vs 12-foot height restriction? Seriously?
In addition, there are duties in law incumbent upon employers to make sure their staff are correctly trained.
Maybe if Network Rail pursued a more vigorous path of prosecution, the message would get through to drivers and companies that
damaging rail property and risking lives will cost them more than a squashed roof and shattered glass. Christina Burton, Birmingham
I would like to say that I was shocked and dismayed by Stefanie Foster’s Comment on bridge strikes ( RAIL 857, 867).
Regretfully, I’m not shocked, as she highlights the all-too-familiar state of play on the roads these days resulting from the lamentable ability of most road ‘users’.
I say the term road ‘users’ as opposed to ‘drivers’, as the word ‘driver’ implies a level of skill and ability that is plainly in absentia in the road ‘users’.
Just observe the vast number of road users that ‘run’ red lights, barge their way across the paths of other vehicles without warning, fail to use their indicators, obstruct junctions, cause mayhem at traffic lights because they don’t understand the relationship between the position of the lights and their respective white threshold line, and (despite the well-publicised higher penalties) continue to use their mobile phones while at the controls of a moving vehicle.
Why are we therefore surprised that such moronic behavior on the road should not exclude ensuring adequate bridge clearance?
I’m afraid not ensuring adequate bridge ‘headroom’ clearance has fallen in with the long list of other dire road user failings, in much the same way as the long-lost attribute of ‘lane discipline’, speed limit compliance, and the various other driver qualities that once constituted ‘road craft’. Stuart Reid, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
The Comment about bridge strikes and how much negligent HGV drivers cost the railway ( RAIL 865) struck a real chord with me.
Within a few miles of my home are two of the most commonly hit bridges - at Rugby Road and (in particular) on the A5 at Watling Street.
The latter has been hit at least 13 times in the last year. Because of its prime location close to the M69 and M42 motorways and A47, any strike always causes massive disruption in an area already clogged with traffic.
Most recently, a five-mile bus journey took over two hours, and CrossCountry and freight trains (this bridge is on the Felixstowe- Nuneaton line) are regularly held up as a result.
Signage is clear for several miles in advance along the A5, so there is simply no excuse. Drivers who cause these problems should lose their HGV licence - it really is that serious. This would be some compensation for the chaos they cause.
Perhaps then, the road haulage industry might finally get its act together. But I’m not betting on that happening any time soon. Terry Kirby, Leicester
I agree with all the points made by Stefanie Foster ( Comment, RAIL 865).
I lived by a bridge under the West Coast Main Line, and remember any number of lorries and even buses getting stuck, sometimes having demolished the height gauge on the way!
I suggest drivers responsible for bridge strikes should have to re-sit their HGV licence, and owners made responsible for full recompense.
One reason road haulage is so competitive is the lower safety and regulatory requirements compared with rail. Richard Pooley, Suffolk
Stefanie Foster is right about the effects of bridge strikes on rail travel. I have been delayed as a result. Time to jail the drivers and a lifetime ban to drive. If it results in lost jobs, tough! Alistair Paxton, Edinburgh