Luxury cars crushed as transporter hits low bridge in Perth (24/10)

[LeylandLen]

Is there a specific thread ?..
Saw this on BBC news page, bridge stike in Perth, Scotland .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-45964816

A car transporter has crashed into a low bridge in Perth, causing tens of thousands of pounds of damage to luxury cars it was carrying.

The roofs of at least two new Range Rovers were crushed in the accident in Marshall Place at about 08:00.

Police were called to the scene as debris on the road caused rush-hour traffic problems.

Network Rail later tweeted to say the bridge had been inspected by engineers and was "passed fit for rail traffic".....

 

[HaggisBotherer]

The Perthshire chelsea tractor fraternity have come off worse than rail users this time. Poor things.

 

[Legolash2o]

Not surprised. I remember reading an article once saying over 50% of drivers don't check their routes for bridges beforehand and just under 50% don't even know the height of their own vehicle.

 

[jopsuk]

There are 3-4 bridge strikes on bridges carrying Network Rail lines every single day, on average

 

[michael74]

As an ex LGV driver (still got my licence though), I find it beyond incomprehensible that so many bridge strikes occur.

 

[sw1ller]

As an ex LGV driver (still got my licence though), I find it beyond incomprehensible that so many bridge strikes occur.

Me too. I once refused delivery to a site as I couldn’t read the bridge height sign. I simply couldn’t take the risk! Some of the bashes near me are very difficult to work out, there’s massive signs in illuminus lettering and flashing lights, yet they still manage to drive into them!!

 

[matchmaker]

These Perth bridges are very clearly low when you see them. No excuse at all!

 

[Legolash2o]

Found the article: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/hgv-drivers-targeted-in-bridge-strikes-campaign/

The campaign follows the shocking admission that 43 per cent of drivers do not check the height of their vehicles before heading out. More than half said they did not take low bridges into account when planning their journeys.

 

[Skymonster]

I wonder which will have more strikes this year - bridges or Northern?

 

[Senex]

This Perth strike was treated on the BBC 6 pm news almost as the amusing item, with a passing comment that the bridge came out of the incident undamaged. If a serious bridge strike occurred as a passenger train was passing at speed, there could well be a very serious incident indeed. Why is society so tolerant of appalling lorry driving? (On a totally different scale, yet another lorry-strike of a historic building in York city centre yesterday—the same sort of driving without any sense of sensitivity to the environment the driver is in.)

 

[lancastrian]

All drivers who cause bridge strikes, should a) lose their HGV license; b) the company who they work for should be charged for the full cost of of bringing the bridge back into full use, including all costs for diversions.

A few bills of a few million or even a few 100,000's would soon sort the problem.

 

[hexagon789]

All drivers who cause bridge strikes, should a) lose their HGV license; b) the company who they work for should be charged for the full cost of of bringing the bridge back into full use, including all costs for diversions.

A few bills of a few million or even a few 100,000's would soon sort the problem.

I agree wholeheartedly, sadly with this sort of thing I think it's going to take a serious incident to force any change.

 

[aylesbury]

Sad how many drivers of HGV,s do not know their height and seem to have a cavalier attitude on how they drive .Does the HGV driving test and teaching need to be upgraded?

 

[Legolash2o]

There's a video on the link I put above saying that the driver can go court. They can be fined or even go to prison depending on the severity.

 

[AndrewE]

All drivers who cause bridge strikes, should a) lose their HGV license; b) the company who they work for should be charged for the full cost of of bringing the bridge back into full use, including all costs for diversions.

A few bills of a few million or even a few 100,000's would soon sort the problem.

Unfortunately their insurance would probably pay up (even though an offence was involved) and we would all end up paying for it through our premiums. As an example
http://bridgestobroadway.blogspot.com/2018/09/work-starts-at-broadway.html says

During January 18, we carried out strike damage repairs to Bridge 1 at Broadway, which were entirely paid for by insurers Aviva

[hopefully not the railway's insurers]... and

The lorry owner’s insurers (AXA) have just agreed to pay for the repairs.

 

[Dr Hoo]

When I was working for ScotRail there was an unfortunate incident. The line between Perth and Dundee was obstructed and an emergency rail replacement bus service was rustled up.
The first double-decker was loaded up at Perth Station and the driver asked station staff for directions as he had never driven the route before. (Obviously he was only used to normal stage carriage routes that didn’t involve low bridges.)
The station staff obligingly suggested that the driver took the route under the low bridge (without thinking).
Crunch!

 

[philthetube]

bus drivers, who have only ever driven busses are not used to having to worry about obstructions over or alongside the road as if they existed then double deckers would not be used on the route, this makes them much more likely to be involved in this sort of incident, and the more experienced they are the worse it becomes.

Please note that this is a generalisation based incidents I have seen.

 

[AndyNLondon]

Unfortunately their insurance would probably pay up (even though an offence was involved) and we would all end up paying for it through our premiums.

It's not unfortunate, it's the main point of motor insurance. If insurers could refuse claims where the driver has committed an offence then the consequence would be that loads of claims would be denied ("You were doing 31mph shortly before you bumped into the lamppost? Claim denied for speeding!", "You rear-ended the car in front because he stopped suddenly and you couldn't react in time? You must have been driving too fast or too close for the road conditions, so ah-ha! Claim denied for driving without due care and attention!", etc.) Which in turn would leave individual drivers liable for the costs of the collisions they cause, which most drivers would only be able to afford for the smallest of incidents, and so in most collisions with significant damage the driver at fault would go bankrupt and the victim(s) would have no way of recovering their losses.
In other words, if motor insurers could deny claims where an offence was involved, your premiums would go down a bit, but the unlucky individuals who are the victims of criminally-bad driving would be totally shafted.

 

[AndrewE]

It's not unfortunate, it's the main point of motor insurance. If insurers could refuse claims where the driver has committed an offence then the consequence would be that loads of claims would be denied ("You were doing 31mph shortly before you bumped into the lamppost? Claim denied for speeding!", "You rear-ended the car in front because he stopped suddenly and you couldn't react in time? You must have been driving too fast or too close for the road conditions, so ah-ha! Claim denied for driving without due care and attention!", etc.) Which in turn would leave individual drivers liable for the costs of the collisions they cause, which most drivers would only be able to afford for the smallest of incidents, and so in most collisions with significant damage the driver at fault would go bankrupt and the victim(s) would have no way of recovering their losses.
In other words, if motor insurers could deny claims where an offence was involved, your premiums would go down a bit, but the unlucky individuals who are the victims of criminally-bad driving would be totally shafted.

I disagree. We are not talking about private drivers here (men of straw, who need to be able to guarantee that others won't be disadvantaged by their mistakes or incompetence) but commercial drivers operating vehicles for a firm which should understand that only properly trained and equipped drivers should be sent out on the road.
I know that the gig economy has changed things, but professional road haulage ought to be good enough to accept its liabilities, and the directors' remuneration and the company's profits get hit if they are irresponsible. A real accident can be covered by insurance (but the premiums should reflect the employer's track record) but corporate negligence shouldn't be at my expense. I knew an HGV driver that had a cheapo private car satnav because his employer wouldn't provide a lorry-tuned one.
That's why I think that any liabilities from non-private motoring should not be paid for by the rest of us...

 

[fairysdad]

Not surprised. I remember reading an article once saying over 50% of drivers don't check their routes for bridges beforehand and just under 50% don't even know the height of their own vehicle.

As an ex LGV driver (still got my licence though), I find it beyond incomprehensible that so many bridge strikes occur.

There is an archived thread on here somewhere where an LGV/HGV driver was continually bragging about the fact that he ignored low bridge signs. The comments from this particular user start here. While the vast majority of LGV/HDV drivers are no doubt professional, the odd driver like this makes me not surprised or incomprehensible at all...

 

[AndrewE]

There is an archived thread on here somewhere where an LGV/HGV driver was continually bragging about the fact that he ignored low bridge signs. The comments from this particular user start here. While the vast majority of LGV/HDV drivers are no doubt professional, the odd driver like this makes me not surprised or incomprehensible at all...

So do we think we should pick up his costs on our insurance premiums?

 

[michael74]

There is an archived thread on here somewhere where an LGV/HGV driver was continually bragging about the fact that he ignored low bridge signs. The comments from this particular user start here. While the vast majority of LGV/HDV drivers are no doubt professional, the odd driver like this makes me not surprised or incomprehensible at all...

Well indeed, the world is full of whoppers and some of them move about us....

 

[snowball]

Presumably a bridge bash, or still more a series of bridge bashes, has an effect on the premiums paid by a driver or a transport company.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Though many larger companies (generally those who have a large (non-subcontracted) fleet for their main business, rather than hauliers by trade) self-insure.

 

[mark-h]

In other words, if motor insurers could deny claims where an offence was involved, your premiums would go down a bit, but the unlucky individuals who are the victims of criminally-bad driving would be totally shafted.

The insurer would have to cover 3rd party damage (the minimum insurance required) but they could, if included in the contract, refuse to cover other damage if the driver is at fault (or driving illegally). They would also be able to (try to) recover costs from the driver.

 

[philthetube]

Insurance companies will not be cross subsidising car trade/lorry trade, if they were losing on lorries they would give up that business rather than using car profits to support it.

 

[RLBH]

Not surprised. I remember reading an article once saying over 50% of drivers don't check their routes for bridges beforehand and just under 50% don't even know the height of their own vehicle.

In other words, about one in four lorries on the roads is a bridge strike waiting to happen.

Why is society so tolerant of appalling lorry driving?

What is needed, IMHO, is a Highways Accident Investigation Branch, with authority to investigate any accident on the trunk road network, involving a professional driver, or leading to fatalities. Something similar to thr AAIB, MAIB or RAIB but for roads. The culture of treating road accidents as something that just happen from time to time isn't really acceptable.

Instead, the road industry has decided to purge the word 'accident' – which doesn't bother other transport sectors – and carries on as normal. Accidents are invariably blamed on individual bad drivers without identifying the systematic failures that accident investigations almost always find.

 

[AndrewE]

The culture of treating road accidents as something that just happen from time to time isn't really acceptable.
Instead, the road industry has decided to purge the word 'accident' – which doesn't bother other transport sectors – and carries on as normal. Accidents are invariably blamed on individual bad drivers without identifying the systematic failures that accident investigations almost always find.

The police are now being much more thorough in their investigations after an RTC (accident.) It's one of the reasons why it takes so much longer to re-open a road after one. The road lobby don't like it but it is bringing this aspect of road transport a bit closer to rail and air.

 

[RLBH]

The police are now being much more thorough in their investigations

There's part of the problem - police investigating accidents. Police have the wrong mindset for the job.

 

[HowardGWR]

There's part of the problem - police investigating accidents. Police have the wrong mindset for the job.

They don't investigate any RTC (Road Traffic Collision -the term was altered to recognise that there is 'no such thing as an accident') unless personal injury is involved. Thus HGVs colliding with bridges would only be a nuisance to police, involving protecting the public and redirecting traffic.