Bridge bashing

[Fat Controller]

2 minutes ago, EddieB said:

Of course the driver (arrested) bears responsibility, but I note that a detour was in place after a temporary road closure.  Was the driver taking the "official" detour and were there no warnings that it involved passing under a low bridge?

Knowing that bridge (I worked near-by a long time ago), I used to duck when in a car..

[Wickham Green]

If the road closure was because of a fallen tree there might not have been any time to put an "official" detour in place.

 

[petethemole]

That bridge in Romsey again (yesterday).  https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18096589.lorry-strikes-bridge-greatbridge-road-romsey/

[F-UnitMad]

12 minutes ago, petethemole said:

That bridge in Romsey again (yesterday).  https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18096589.lorry-strikes-bridge-greatbridge-road-romsey/

Certainly seems to be jinxed, that bridge!!

 

Was trying to work out if the "22 strikes in 15 years" includes my altercation with it . Given that was back in 2003, probably not!! 

[F-UnitMad]

33 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

Knowing that bridge (I worked near-by a long time ago), I used to duck when in a car..

Not trying to defend the bus driver in this instance, but by the looks of it there are two bridges - the first a high arch, that the bus has got under - but the second behind it is much lower, & although it has warnings on it, I'm surprised the first bridge doesn't appear to have any warnings on it at all about the much lower bridge right behind it.

It seems that the driver noted the arch bridge as he approached - he went to the middle of the road to go under it - but he clearly didn't register the one behind at all. Maybe earlier warning signs would've helped.?

[Titan]

38 minutes ago, EddieB said:

Of course the driver (arrested) bears responsibility, but I note that a detour was in place after a temporary road closure.  Was the driver taking the "official" detour and were there no warnings that it involved passing under a low bridge?

 

If the bus made a left turn into that lane there is no prior warning.   The only warning sign there is is on the bridge itself, which is not only in the shadow of the much taller bridge, it is also not illuminated, and as the accident happened early in the morning the sun could have been shining in the drivers eyes if the google street view is anything to go by. It is quite possible that the driver did not realise there was a second lower bridge immediately behind the one that had plenty of room, depending on the lighting at the time.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6376198,-3.9375359,3a,60y,79.85h,85.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM_3YhXEqc-IComEjzAdXYQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

 

 

 

 

[Fat Controller]

15 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

Not trying to defend the bus driver in this instance, but by the looks of it there are two bridges - the first a high arch, that the bus has got under - but the second behind it is much lower, & although it has warnings on it, I'm surprised the first bridge doesn't appear to have any warnings on it at all about the much lower bridge right behind it.

It seems that the driver noted the arch bridge as he approached - he went to the middle of the road to go under it - but he clearly didn't register the one behind at all. Maybe earlier warning signs would've helped.?

15 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

Not trying to defend the bus driver in this instance, but by the looks of it there are two bridges - the first a high arch, that the bus has got under - but the second behind it is much lower, & although it has warnings on it, I'm surprised the first bridge doesn't appear to have any warnings on it at all about the much lower bridge right behind it.

It seems that the driver noted the arch bridge as he approached - he went to the middle of the road to go under it - but he clearly didn't register the one behind at all. Maybe earlier warning signs would've helped.?

The higher of the two bridges goes under the westbound loop to Carmarthen. The lower goes under the main line. For anyone who wants to look at the relevant Google, it's the road that connects Neath Road and Morfa Road (the latter is on the route of the old Morristown West branch. The only signage for a low bridge is on the second bridge. I do wonder if he had been working on the Park'N'Ride service, as two of the car parks are adjacent to the junction at the Morfa Road end.

1 hour ago, EddieB said:

Of course the driver (arrested) bears responsibility, but I note that a detour was in place after a temporary road closure.  Was the driver taking the "official" detour and were there no warnings that it involved passing under a low bridge?

Knowing that bridge (I worked near-by a long time ago), I used to duck when in a car..

Edited December 12, 2019 by Fat Controller

[phil-b259]

14 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

Not trying to defend the bus driver in this instance, but by the looks of it there are two bridges - the first a high arch, that the bus has got under - but the second behind it is much lower, & although it has warnings on it, I'm surprised the first bridge doesn't appear to have any warnings on it at all about the much lower bridge right behind it.

It seems that the driver noted the arch bridge as he approached - he went to the middle of the road to go under it - but he clearly didn't register the one behind at all. Maybe earlier warning signs would've helped.?

 

13 minutes ago, Titan said:

 

If the bus made a left turn into that lane there is no prior warning.   The only warning sign there is is on the bridge itself, which is not only in the shadow of the much taller bridge, it is also not illuminated, and as the accident happened early in the morning the sun could have been shining in the drivers eyes if the google street view is anything to go by. It is quite possible that the driver did not realise there was a second lower bridge immediately behind the one that had plenty of room, depending on the lighting at the time.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6376198,-3.9375359,3a,60y,79.85h,85.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM_3YhXEqc-IComEjzAdXYQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

 

 

 

 

The official DfT guidance suggests that where 'a bridge' (as far as drivers may perceive it) has a number of different height decks, then consideration should be given to installing measures to make them appear the same height. This could include rubber sheeting that dangles down or bridge protection beams.

 

As such I think that while obviously there will be considerable focus on the driver - questions need to be asked of NR and the highway authority over why they had not addressed this rather obvious hazard as per the official guidance.

 

From https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/350114/network-rail-bridge-strike-protocol.pdf

 

composite (adjacent arch and flat soffit) bridges and bridges with multiple ownership

 

2.21 it is not unknown for a highway to be crossed by several bridges on a section between junctions such as when the section of road is spanned by:–two or more structures that are integrated as a single bridge–two or more separate structures in close proximity – structures with a combination of forms (e.g. a mixture of arch and flat soffit)–structures in multiple ownerships (e.g. more than one rail Authority or adjacent road and rail bridges).

 

At such locations the Highway Manager should:–

Ascertain the ownership of adjacent structures (which may or may not be possible from bridge identification plates) spanning the section of road.

Identify the lowest headroom under all the bridges over the section of road when developing signing schemes.

Hold discussions with the bridge owner(s) regarding measures to protect bridge spans at risk of bridge strikes over the section of road.

 

Further guidance on the signing of composite bridges is given in tsM43 paragraphs 7.25 to 7.27

 

 

From https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/772037/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-4.pdf

 

7.9 Composite bridges

7.9.1. Some bridges originally built as arches have been adapted with the addition of girders or beams. Where the arch is the lowest part, the whole structure should be signed as an arch bridge. Black and yellow striped plates (to highlight the profile of the arch) should be suspended from the bridge beam, together with further plates on the arch itself.

 

(I don't see why the reverse cannot be done when, as in the Swansea situation, its the girder bridge that is lower.)

 

7.9.2. Where the beam is lower than any part of the arch, the whole structure should be signed as a non‑arch bridge and plates with black and yellow markings to diagram 530.2 suspended from the arch at the height of the beam. Similarly, where two adjacent beam bridges have different headroom, the plates should be located on the higher bridge at the height of the lower one.BRIDGES AND OTHER STRUCTURES46

 

7.9.3. Experience has shown that these suspended plates will themselves be struck from time to time and that rigidly‑mounted aluminium substrates are not suitable. Rubber or other flexible material should be used for the backing, suspended by means of chains or hinges fixed securely to the bridge structure by a method agreed with the bridge owner. The plates should not be fixed rigidly by screws or bolts to the face of the bridge, as there is a greater risk than with flexibly-suspended plates of them being dislodged and falling onto vehicles on the road beneath. The use of rubber‑backed plates will help to avoid annoyance to nearby residents from the noise of hanging metal plates striking the bridge structure in wind or vehicle slipstream. It is recommended that the yellow parts of the marking should be retroreflective; they may also be fluorescent (see 7.3.1). When the signs are lit, the plates should also be lit whenever practicable. This is particularly helpful where a girder bridge is followed by a more restrictive arch bridge.

[Wickham Green]

40 minutes ago, Titan said:

 

If the bus made a left turn into that lane there is no prior warning.   The only warning sign there is is on the bridge itself, which is not only in the shadow of the much taller bridge, it is also not illuminated, and as the accident happened early in the morning the sun could have been shining in the drivers eyes if the google street view is anything to go by. It is quite possible that the driver did not realise there was a second lower bridge immediately behind the one that had plenty of room, depending on the lighting at the time.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6376198,-3.9375359,3a,60y,79.85h,85.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM_3YhXEqc-IComEjzAdXYQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

 

 

 

 

Understand it was raining heavily at the time ..... another distraction but sun's unlikely !

[ajwffc]

1 hour ago, Titan said:

 

If the bus made a left turn into that lane there is no prior warning.   The only warning sign there is is on the bridge itself, which is not only in the shadow of the much taller bridge, it is also not illuminated, and as the accident happened early in the morning the sun could have been shining in the drivers eyes if the google street view is anything to go by. It is quite possible that the driver did not realise there was a second lower bridge immediately behind the one that had plenty of room, depending on the lighting at the time.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6376198,-3.9375359,3a,60y,79.85h,85.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM_3YhXEqc-IComEjzAdXYQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

 

 

 

 

Their are warning signs on the approach to the junction in both directions.

 

https://goo.gl/maps/7vLjZh5XefgfWmg16

https://goo.gl/maps/EE9XzWeVhs3hFVYh9

[Fat Controller]

Just read a comment from the area, who said that whilst this 'short-cut' was a normal route for 'Park and Ride' buses, it was off limits to 'normal' buses

[corneliuslundie]

Not very impressed by the first sign. And at a bus stop, so could easily be obscured to passing traffic. Presumably the regular route is either single decker or does not turn left here.

Jonathan

[Butler Henderson]

Some operators run specific routes with a mixture of single and double decker's; wouldn't be the first time a driver has forgot its a double decker if that was the case.

[PhilJ W]

2 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

Not trying to defend the bus driver in this instance, but by the looks of it there are two bridges - the first a high arch, that the bus has got under - but the second behind it is much lower, & although it has warnings on it, I'm surprised the first bridge doesn't appear to have any warnings on it at all about the much lower bridge right behind it.

It seems that the driver noted the arch bridge as he approached - he went to the middle of the road to go under it - but he clearly didn't register the one behind at all. Maybe earlier warning signs would've helped.?

 

2 hours ago, Titan said:

 

If the bus made a left turn into that lane there is no prior warning.   The only warning sign there is is on the bridge itself, which is not only in the shadow of the much taller bridge, it is also not illuminated, and as the accident happened early in the morning the sun could have been shining in the drivers eyes if the google street view is anything to go by. It is quite possible that the driver did not realise there was a second lower bridge immediately behind the one that had plenty of room, depending on the lighting at the time.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6376198,-3.9375359,3a,60y,79.85h,85.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM_3YhXEqc-IComEjzAdXYQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

 

 

 

 

I looked at the image on Google. The Google image was taken in the early morning and the sun was shining straight into the Google camera. Though the Google image was taken in June this incident took place at 09:10 so the sun would be in a similar position. Perhaps it would be a good idea to fit a bar with the neccessary warnings to the arched bridge at the same height as the lower bridge.

[F-UnitMad]

2 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Perhaps it would be a good idea to fit a bar with the neccessary warnings to the arched bridge at the same height as the lower bridge.

From my time & experience as an HGV Driver, that's what I would've expected to see - a height warning on the arch bridge, for the bridge behind it. I can imagine it would be easy to sub-conciously see the arch bridge with no warning sign, & not register that there's a hazard just beyond it. If this sounds like not really paying attention, an awful lot of driving a vehicle is done sub-conciously - literally without 'thinking', as in "I need to change gear now", etc; i.e. the sort of intense thinking you had to do as a learner, but later becomes "natural" - in actual fact, "sub-concious".

 

[Wickham Green]

A cynic might hypothesise that the driver was obeying his SatNav ............ but I trust professional bus drivers are above that sort of thing.

[meil]

This bus driver has been ill served by the usual incompetent suspects at Network Rail and Local Authority (both signage and diversionary route planning).

[Fat Controller]

17 hours ago, Butler Henderson said:

Some operators run specific routes with a mixture of single and double decker's; wouldn't be the first time a driver has forgot its a double decker if that was the case.

The road is, in fact, a designated  access route for the 'Park and Ride' services that run into the parking areas on Morfa Road. but not for any other buses.

[caradoc]

2 hours ago, meil said:

This bus driver has been ill served by the usual incompetent suspects at Network Rail and Local Authority (both signage and diversionary route planning).

 

What an utterly ridiculous thing to say. If he has been ill-served by anything other than his own carelessness (which could have killed someone) it is by his employer in allowing him to drive double-decker buses without apparently ensuring he was aware of hazards in the area.

 

Edited December 13, 2019 by caradoc
Spelling mistake

[caradoc]

As a matter of interest, does this particular bridge have a history of repeated strikes by large vehicles, including double-decker buses ?

 

[meil]

1 hour ago, caradoc said:

 

What an utterly ridiculous thing to say. If he has been ill-served by anything other than his own carelessness (which could have killed someone) it is by his employer in allowing him to drive double-decker buses without apparently ensuring he was aware of hazards in the area.

 

It's not a ridiculous thing to say and certainly not utterly. Local authorities are renowned for their lack joined-up thinking and competence in anything related to highways.

[Wickham Green]

Just a thought, if aircraft have devices to detect other objects ( planes or mountains ) in the vicinity and cars have devises to tell you when you're parking too close to other cars ( etc. ) - maybe double-deckers should be fitted with something to slam on the anchors if they approach something only a single-decker could get under ? ........................ OK, the Patent's mine and I expect the royalties to start rolling in any moment ...... not !

[Fat Controller]

I would be interested to see what the planned route was, and how the route the bus driver took deviated from this.

[caradoc]

On 12/12/2019 at 14:40, EddieB said:

Of course the driver (arrested) bears responsibility, but I note that a detour was in place after a temporary road closure.  Was the driver taking the "official" detour and were there no warnings that it involved passing under a low bridge?

 

The road sign on the approach to the junction clearly shows a low bridge on the side road, plus there is (or rather was) a sign on the bridge itself, and yellow/black chevrons painted on it. Plus a local bus Driver would surely be expected to be aware of such hazards anyway ?

[caradoc]

2 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

I would be interested to see what the planned route was, and how the route the bus driver took deviated from this.

 

The planned and actual routes are shown in the BBC News Report, link as per the OP yesterday for this incident;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-50759983

 

2 hours ago, meil said:

It's not a ridiculous thing to say and certainly not utterly. Local authorities are renowned for their lack joined-up thinking and competence in anything related to highways.

 

Have you checked out the actual situation; There is a road sign on the approach to the junction which clearly shows a low bridge on the side road, plus there is (or rather was) a sign on the bridge itself, and yellow/black chevrons painted on it. I'm still not sure how either Network Rail or the local authority can be held responsible, or in what way they are incompetent.