Incompetence jails

[spot]

There ought to be jails in this country specifically built to imprison incompetents until the entire cost of their incompetence is paid back to everyone who suffered financial loss.

Lorry hits Lambeth bridge despite huge warning signs - BBC News

What a total twat.

[Saint_]

We're actually sending the men responsible for the Flint Michigan Water Poisoning to jail. I thought that was pretty unexpected... but cool.

[gmc]

It's a container maybe he just picked it up at a port and was given the wrong height or habitually drives a smaller lorry most are 13' 3" or 13' 6" or maybe it was 13' 9" and he fell for the myth that they allow a couple of inches when signing. Doesn't explain all the others though Have had a narrow escape myself turning in to a street with a low bridge cos some comedian had nicked the warning sign before the turning. (alumimium get a good price). He quite probably lost his job as a result of this.

[spot]

I'm surprised. I had thought a container was invariably either 8' 6" or 9' 6" high, and that the cab had to have a large fluorescent sign on the dashboard saying the height limit in either case. I can see that the long flat bit the container sits on might have its own height, but that's what the large fluorescent sign on the dashboard is there to cater for.

[AnneBoleyn]

The Third Leading Cause of Death in USA is listed as medical error, and kills 250,000 a year. First cause heart disease, 2nd cancer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to- ... ed-states/

Incompetant enough spot?

[tude dog]

I remember once on the job being awaked by my co-driver as we were attempting to leave New York. We did a delivery on Long Island he missed the route to get us off the George Washington Bridge which is free escaping the island. So I played navigator to get us out and plotted a path to freedom. Well, who knew that the Verrazano–Narrows Bridge is forty bucks. We didn't have that much between us so we were turned around. Drove around to find an ATM.

I am not sure but I think the road we drove through the middle of Brooklyn was Atlantic Ave. Along the way, we saw numerous overpasses or other obstacles which were posted less than the standard 13' 6'' hight. We would have stopped but fortunate for us we were following another truck.

Never understood that.

[AnneBoleyn]

Saint_;1495379 wrote: We're actually sending the men responsible for the Flint Michigan Water Poisoning to jail. I thought that was pretty unexpected... but cool.


Before jail, isn't there going to be that thing called 'a trial'????

[gmc]

spot;1495397 wrote: I'm surprised. I had thought a container was invariably either 8' 6" or 9' 6" high, and that the cab had to have a large fluorescent sign on the dashboard saying the height limit in either case. I can see that the long flat bit the container sits on might have its own height, but that's what the large fluorescent sign on the dashboard is there to cater for.


It's altered manually and whille the container might be such and such a height it's sitting on a trailer so you need to know the total height above the fifth wheel. If he hadn't checked or the information was wrong but it's still his responsibility although I can empathise with him. I was once given a truck sat nav with instructions that I must use it as it had the correct heights etc etc. terrific except the maps were tghree yaers out of date and I ended up in a cul de sac. I use my own at least the maps are updated regularly sat navs are an aid to navigation I usualkly carry maps as well having had too many I'm not going down there moments.

[spot]

So you reckon he saw the bridge, he saw the signs, he actively thought "this is okay for what I'm driving" and he was simply wrong? That's not the position I started with, I thought he was fully informed about the height of his load but he was remembering how the new barmaid down The Rogered Tomcat pushed her tongue in his ear after the Karaoke last Saturday afternoon.

In which case, what more can be done to get "this is okay for what I'm driving" more aligned with physical reality?

[Bruv]

A simple hanging device shortly before the actual bridge the same as found in underground car parks and my local refuse dump would stop such events for next to no outlay..................should be compulsory.

[spot]

A gallows??

No... hang on, I'll get there, I remember when they were common at crossroads.

Gibbet.

[Bruv]

spot;1495439 wrote: A gallows??

No... hang on, I'll get there, I remember when they were common at crossroads.

Gibbet.


You are that old ?

[spot]

Bruv;1495441 wrote: You are that old ?Before Pembroke Road was metaled from the the east corner of Clifton up to the Downs it was a differently-named high-sided grassy horse lane, popular because it had only a slight gradient at any point unlike Blackboy Hill. Where it met the road up from the Gorge it widened out into a turfed triangle, and on the triangle stood the gibbet.

As Clifton grew that way and Clifton College was being considered they quietly took the gibbet down and replaced it with a tree, in front of which they placed a horse-trough. The tree is still there, so this can't have back in time out of memory. I'm fairly sure there are no photos of it though.

When you get my age it becomes less and less important whose eyes you saw something through, and less and less likely you'll remember whose even if you try to. I have a vivid recollection of that gibbet.

[LarsMac]

If you start putting people in jail for incompetence, we would need a lot more jails.

[spot]

Ah, but these are special additional jails. It won't leed to crowding in the ones we already have.

The new special jails could have an inscription in stone over the entrance: "Incompetents of the world unite, you have nothing to use but your brains", and they'll have to pass tests as well as pay off the damage before they can get out.

Did nobody reed the bit at the bottom of the clipping?"The bridge was hit by lorries four times in September and has since been struck twice every month."That's just one bridge. Who employs these people?

[LarsMac]

Perhaps it is the people who built the bridge who should be dealt with

[spot]

Without actually checking, I would guess it was constructed 160 years ago. Though it may have had occasional upgrades since. The road has been there since before 1148.

[Bruv]

So who is incompetent ?

I would say the council for not implementing a simple 'gibbet' hanging across the run up to this bridge.

It would cost a fraction of clearing up after every incident.......some people never learn.....that is incompetently handling the resources we entrust them with.

[gmc]

spot;1495423 wrote: So you reckon he saw the bridge, he saw the signs, he actively thought "this is okay for what I'm driving" and he was simply wrong? That's not the position I started with, I thought he was fully informed about the height of his load but he was remembering how the new barmaid down The Rogered Tomcat pushed her tongue in his ear after the Karaoke last Saturday afternoon.

In which case, what more can be done to get "this is okay for what I'm driving" more aligned with physical reality?


I don't know what happened it could simply be he was used to having a smaller lorry and hadn't checked or changed trailers and forgot to check the height or maybe the road has been resurfaced so often the height of the bridge above the road is actually wrong - you do wonder why it is being hit so often. The haulier pays it comes off his insurance and likely the driver is now umemployed.

I've also been given lorries where some comedian has thought it funny to change the height indicators.

[Bruv]

gmc;1495454 wrote: I've also been given lorries where some comedian has thought it funny to change the height indicators.


I bet you laughed..................didn't you?

[gmc]

Bruv;1495455 wrote: I bet you laughed..................didn't you?


Heartily luckily you don't get many 4ft high lorries som it was an easy one to spot

[FourPart]

This not doesn't only appear to have a dangly thing, but it has flashy lights on it too. Does it make a blind bit of difference. Of course not - although if the dangly thing were a bit lower...

[Bruv]

It shouldn't be beyond man's ability to measure the dangly thing correctly and put it further from the danger zone, and to set off some sort of alarm, flashing lights or physical sign to drop when disturbed preventing such occurrences.

[spot]

Perhaps they could merge the problem with roads suddenly collapsing into vasty pits, and trigger the collapse with the alarm. Voila, as Shakespeare put it in Twelfth Night. Problem solved.

[Bruv]

spot;1495794 wrote: Perhaps they could merge the problem with roads suddenly collapsing into vasty pits, and trigger the collapse with the alarm. Voila, as Shakespeare put it in Twelfth Night. Problem solved.


Your analytical brain is wasted on this forum.

[spot]

Arthur Askey had the same problem at the Palladium.

[gmc]

Out yesterday different vehicle from the day before appraoching bridge suddenly remembered I hadn't changed the height setting on my GPS. I can understand how people hit bridges. Everybody makes mistakes for 100 milies you drive you make at least one error that could result in an accident ( my opinion not backed up by research but just think about it for a minute) be it daydreaming and not noticing slowing traffic in front of you or swerving while you change a CD or my all time favourite not having the nouse to realise that a traffic light that is green as you approach is more likely than not to go red. AND I HATE CYCLISTS THAT GO THROUGH THEM AND COMPLAIN BECAUSE THEY NEARLY GET MOWN DOWN.

If you are approaching a 13 foot bridge an you are in a 13ft high lorry doies that mean a 13ft lorry will go under or that the bridge is 13ft high in which case you will scrape the roof. Is it apocryophal that they usually allow a couopkle of inches extra or is that a fact. You're in a lorry 13 ft high approaching a 13ft breidge what would you do?

[spot]

The measurement shown is the clearance, it's the highest you can be and still safely get under.

[FourPart]

It puts me in mind of the story (which I doubt ever really happened) about the time when a lorry got itself stuck under a bridge. The driver was baffled. The Police called the Fire Brigade, who tried to push it out with one of their trucks. A local farmer tried towing it out with his tractor. Then, a local kid came along & simply let some air out of the tyres.

[LarsMac]

FourPart;1495858 wrote: It puts me in mind of the story (which I doubt ever really happened) about the time when a lorry got itself stuck under a bridge. The driver was baffled. The Police called the Fire Brigade, who tried to push it out with one of their trucks. A local farmer tried towing it out with his tractor. Then, a local kid came along & simply let some air out of the tyres.


That story has been around in one form or another since they first invented Pneumatic Tires.

One of the early "Think outside the box" stories of the 20th Century

[gmc]

spot;1495841 wrote: The measurement shown is the clearance, it's the highest you can be and still safely get under.


really?



.11

The imperial figure shown on signs to indicate the available headroom should be at least 3 inches less than the measured height to allow a safety margin. If the resulting figure is not a multiple of 3 inches, it should be rounded down to the nearest

lower multiple of 3 inches.

Example 1: measured height 15'-2",

subtract 3" to create a safety margin 14'-11",

round down to nearest multiple of 3"

and sign as 14'-9".

Example 2: measured height 14'-6",

subtract 3" to create a safety margin 14'-3",

and sign as 14'-3" (rounding down not required

as already expressed to the nearest 3")

Thus, the maximum headroom






So 13ft 3 inch bridge will have a sign saying 13ft as will one that is 13ft 5inches but the actual clearance is quite a bit different. It sounds a lot 3inches but there are plenty of old bridges where the road has been resurfaced or there is a steep camber and the lorry tilts and the actual margin for error is not as great as it might seem. It's even worse with artics and the height will vary depending on the load. So yes I can understand how someone can hit a bridge despite all the indications that they should get through it's not always blind stupidity. Then again I have little sympathy for the ones who rely on the 3inch reduction and will take a thrteen two lorry through a thirteen foot bridge and yes I have been out with guys who think like that and got away withn it but personally I wouldn't take the chance.

[spot]

gmc;1495916 wrote: really?




Well, yes, really. What you wrote and what I wrote mean exactly the same thing. What's written on the sign is "the highest you can be and still safely get under". The word that means that is "clearance", it's a shorthand for "can I get under that bridge safely if I'm this tall". If your figure is bigger than the sign's figure then the answer is "no".

[gmc]

spot;1495917 wrote: Well, yes, really. What you wrote and what I wrote mean exactly the same thing. What's written on the sign is "the highest you can be and still safely get under". The word that means that is "clearance", it's a shorthand for "can I get under that bridge safely if I'm this tall". If your figure is bigger than the sign's figure then the answer is "no".


Yes they do and I'm not disagreeing with you, 13 ft is the typoiocal height of a rigid lorry but I know drivers who have scraped roofs going through 13ft clearances in 13ft high lorries beacause of camber or resurfacing work having been done or gone through unloaded and hit it on the way back I'm just saying it's not always stupidity. How often have you done something stupid while driving and been lucky to get away with it

The ones that do hit bridges because they are overheight are not like bankers. They get prosecuted for driving without due care and attention and probably lose their jiobs as well it is not a trivial incident in any way.

[FourPart]

There can also be a difference depending on the width of a lorry. With an arch bridge, is the clearance taken from the peak point of the bridge, or from the point at which the arch begins?

[spot]

From the lowest edge a vehicle could touch while remaining on the road surface.

[FourPart]

which means that a complete semi circle arch would have a zero clearance.

[spot]

FourPart;1495954 wrote: which means that a complete semi circle arch would have a zero clearance.


Not at all, the road surface would be under the central area and the pedestrian areas to the edges.

A complete semi circle arch rests on a column. Your "zero clearance" is above the column height. The column height would be the actual clearance if the road width extended the entire width of the arch.

[gmc]

They usually show the clearance in the centre and at the side where the column meets the arch.

[Bruv]

We have several bridges in my town that arched without side columns, they are very old brick built railway bridges, so the arch is continuous to street level.

[spot]

Bruv;1495972 wrote: We have several bridges in my town that arched without side columns, they are very old brick built railway bridges, so the arch is continuous to street level.


Like these?



They have those in Stepney too.

Getting a road (as opposed to a footpath) through one would be tricky, I can't immediately think of an example. Can you google one from your example and link to it for us?

[Bruv]

I am mistaken, the bridge that is entirely rounded is a brick built footpath under the railway HERE (if that link works) It amazes me every time I use it, how the bricklayer did it, was it built and then infilled above it with the railway lines ?

A bridge just up the road to this one has been jammed many times by lorries delivering to the Old Railway works, but that is a brick and girder type, I thought that too was arched.

But here is an example of a road bridge and here is another of a bricked arch.

[FourPart]

That's the type I meant. In 'theory' the clearance at the widest point is zero.

I notice that the 2nd example not only gives 2 different height signs (the picture quality isn't sufficiently clear to make it out), but it looks like there's a white marker line to show at what point each of the 2 heights applies to. However, despite the effort having been made to clarify the hazard, it still looks as if there's been some damage done to the brickwork by someone who failed to heed the warnings.

[spot]

If anyone's interested in the current statistics, Network Rail urges drivers to stop hitting low bridge - BBC News has quite a few.

[Ahso!]

Drivers might be assuming either that all trucks and/or bridges are made to standard measurements. That bridge is probably going to need rebuilding because it's apparently not going to stop happening. You'd think local planners would have figured that out by now.

It could be that once a truck is at the bridge it might be too difficult to turn around, so they try anyway.

I wonder if the drivers lose their jobs for trying to clear the bridge.

[LarsMac]

They could cut the road bed lower, which would leave a better clearance.

[spot]

Twenty years from now we'll be using transporter beams to instantly move goods around the country and the only road users will be pushbikes and public transport.

[Bryn Mawr]

spot;1505977 wrote: Twenty years from now we'll be using transporter beams to instantly move goods around the country and the only road users will be pushbikes and public transport.


I think we'd all wish for that but I can't see it happening.

[spot]

Tell the Victorians how many horses are stabled in the East End today.

[Bryn Mawr]

spot;1506088 wrote: Tell the Victorians how many horses are stabled in the East End today.


Certainly there's now less that twenty tonnes of manure shipped out of the area each day.

[spot]

If you're being accurate and that's your unit of measure then it's tonnes. If you're giving a rough figure in English then it's still tons. The use of tonnes in an approximation has annoyed me for decades.