Open Access
Something to say? This is your platform.
RAIL 867’s Comment raises some interesting issues regarding bridge impacts by road vehicles, but fails to mention what has been the other concerning issue of ‘over-bridges’. Both areas could and should be safeguarded by more effective legislation.
Some expensive engineering work has been done to reduce the risk of Great Heck-type incidents (ten rail deaths) on major roads, but the parapets and approaches on the thousands of rail bridges on minor roads are still at risk, especially from larger vehicles.
There was little national coverage of the dislodgement of a bridge parapet by an HGV at Froxfield on the Berks & Hants Line (Rail Accident Investigation Branch, February 2016). An articulated vehicle hit the bridge on a grossly unsuitable minor road. Some 12 tons of debris landed on the track. Without some luck, this could have been a multiple fatality incident.
A mandatory satnav for HGVs could not only reduce bridge impacts, it could also bring far wider benefits to villages and streets that suffer daily from oversize vehicles.
There is a Catch 22. Local authorities do have the power to impose restrictions via Traffic Regulation Orders, but without either an effective way for all drivers to be well-informed, or police action against known offenders, such orders are almost useless.
The Department for Transport has said that provision of an HGV-specific satnav is down to market forces. Market forces may make an impact on responsible operators, but it is the impacts from less responsible road users about which we should have concerns.
We need the DfT to support the development of a mandatory satnav for larger commercial vehicles, with a national database of restrictions, together with the ability for local authorities to effectively enforce such restrictions. The likely wider use of even larger HGVs, such as those with yet longer trailers, raises further risks.
Effective enforceable regulations on our roads are urgently needed. We seem to accept the deaths of road users on a daily basis - but lawlessness by supposed professional road users that cause the occasional death could simply be a precursor to something far worse. Prevention IS better than prosecution.
In addition, many existing Laws are ineffective, especially for dangerous driving, as the phrase “far below what would be ‘expected’ of a competent and careful driver” is not well understood by a typical driver on a jury.
Of those who drive, around 80% will consider themselves ‘competent and careful’, yet compliance with road traffic law by the average driver is poor.
Especially for those who drive as part of their job we need far higher standards, and the DfT must help! Jim Chisholm, Cambridge
On the subject of bridge strikes ( Open Access, RAIL 869): I live not far from Harpenden station, which has a low bridge alongside its access road.
It’s had its fair share of knocks, but the worst two involved double-deck buses owned by a local company and being used on the school run (although fortunately nearly empty at the time). Both times the drivers were said to say: “I usually drive single-deck buses, and forgot what I was driving.”
As a lorry driver for 45 years, there are a few items that I would like to correct. Paul Putnam was right in some of what he said, but it’s not all that easy - most of the time lorry drivers don’t get time for ‘homework’.
Many drivers, both those on day work or on nights away from home, don’t know where they are going until the customer that you report to says: “You are going to Fred Bloggs, and you are due there in three hours for your timed delivery at 1130. He will have you unloaded by 1230 and you have to be at 50 miles away at 1430.”
You may have two or more calls as well. Unless you do the same work week after week, all you know is your start time, which must not be less than 11 hours from your last finish time.
Most drivers don’t use satnav, which sends drivers into hamlets or narrow roads where they don’t want (or need) to be. It’s often better to get out and ask.
A lot of drivers I know will ask: “Have you been to Fred Bloggs? Are there any problems en route, and if a motorway is involved, which is the best exit to leave the motorway?”
Like I did, they have a large AA map and mark any low bridges on the page. If I didn’t know the site that I was going to, I’d just check my road atlas once I entered the county of my destination.
I only know one driver who hit a low (13ft) bridge, and that wasn’t his fault. Our full fleet of that type of lorry were built at 12ft 10in - empty. The driver was on a weekly delivery to a site in Stoke-on-Trent, and with at least half a load still on his lorry he was about two inches lower than the 12ft 10in. He got halfway through, touched the bridge, and rolled the roof back like a sardine can. The driver, as usual, slowed to about 20mph.
All bridges, and anything that overhangs the road under 16ft 6in, must by law have height warning signs.
Also, I was surprised that Paul didn’t mention that all HGV and PSV (lorry and bus/coach) drivers must now (since 2005) hold a driver’s CPC Certificate of Professional Competence. These refresher and update tests can be taken at one week’s training every five years, or five one-day courses. As many drivers have to pay for these test themselves, the one day a year helps. I’ve seen some test centres charge £1,250 for the week’s course.
I was just on retirement age when the law came in, but a workmate told me they had four days on law updates and one day on a six-hour road test, and (although it’s not part of the test), a two-hour first aid session.
By now older drivers must have started their third courses. Remember if you fail that, your HGV/PSV is worthless anyway. Bill Shepherd, St Albans
There is a very simple way to significantly reduce the annual bill for such ‘regular damage’ caused by bridge strikes: compel the road industry (and thus their insurers) to foot the bill for Network Rail-effected ‘safety improvements’!
Since bridges are not noted for
making sudden movements, I think most lawyers/courts would accept that the blame for such events is 100% due to the inattention/inefficiency/ incompetence of the driver (and hence legal owner) of the offending vehicles.
If NR were given a monopoly for effecting improvements (such as lowering the road height under such bridges), and were then to bill every owner (and thus their insurers) for the costs, its multi-billion-pound costings (along with delay/repay compensation sums thrown in for good measure) would almost overnight ensure that the road industry would find a very effective way of eliminating such costly and timewasting damage!
Mike Foinette, East Sussex
I broadly agreed with Stefanie Foster’s Comment on bridge strikes ( RAIL 867). My dad, on the other hand, argued that a stiffer prosecution regime is not going to draw the attention of bridge strikes to drivers.
He went on to mention that he could imagine situations where drivers who hire goods vehicles occasionally may not be used to thinking about height restrictions (although legally, I imagine this would constitute driving without due care at the very least).
I therefore wonder what proportion of bridge strikes are due to drivers who drive tall vehicles or goods vehicles frequently or as a vocation.
My dad also mentioned that one method that ought to be applied more frequently to bridges in the UK is the use of gantries in advance of the bridge, so that if a vehicle does ignore signs and flashing warning lights, it will hit the gantry but not the bridge itself.
Such installations could include dangling bars - as seen on the southern approach (northbound) to the Blackwall Tunnel, for example. This would mean that a driver would hear their vehicle striking a warning bar, and would be able to stop well before the bridge.
The cost effectiveness of such methods is something that we do not know about, so I wonder if anyone could comment on how feasible employing these gantries could be. Not necessarily on all railway bridges, but on bridges that could be judged as high risk.
Don Praveen Amarasinghe, London
A road in my area had a problem with bridge strikes, until a device was installed so that when an over-height vehicle approaches the bridge, a display board shows “Turn Back Over Height Vehicle”.
Since this was installed I have not heard of any further incidents. It seems quite a simple remedy to an increasing problem with drivers of large vehicles.
Sue Wicker, Surrey
I am a retired bus driver, and agree entirely with Stefanie Foster on bridge strikes (Comment, RAIL 867).
It is time the entire Road Traffic Act was brought up to date, and drivers and companies pay the cost. How can it be right for these managers to get off scot-free?
I see bad HGV driving every day, and it is time their managers and companies were in the dock. Why should rail have to pay for their incompetence?
David Scott, Aberdeen