Jump to content

Foolish drivers

Rate this topic


enniscorthyman
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

Just a heads up people !!!

The Garda Traffic Corps found over 200 dead crows on the M7 near Limerick recently, and there was concern that they may have died from Avian Flu. A Pathologist examined the remains of all the crows, and, to everyone's relief, confirmed the problem was NOT Avian Flu.
The cause of death appeared to be from vehicular impacts. However, during analysis it was noted that varying colours of paints appeared on the bird's beaks and claws.
By analysing these paint residues it was found that 98% of the crows had been killed by impact with motorbikes, while only 2% were killed by cars.
The investigators then hired an Ornithological Behaviourist to determine if there was a cause for the disproportionate percentages of motorbike kills versus car kills. The Ornithological Behaviourist quickly concluded that when crows eat road kill, they always have a look-out crow to warn of danger.
They discovered that while all the lookout crows could shout "Cah", not a single one could shout "Bike"

Sorry, I blame the virus...

  • WOW! 1
  • Funny 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has also been noted that, whilst rabbits are frequently casualties of road traffic collisions, it seems that hares very rarely are.

The difference is not accounted for merely by the respective population figures. Whilst hares are far less numerous, this does not equate to the very low numbers that are found as road-kill.

An extensive research project found several different reasons, a significant one was that rabbits will make an individual decision to cross a road, and often an erroneous one, too.

Hares, however, have been found to cross in groups, and the younger hares rely on the experience of older individuals to select a safer crossing situation.

When driving, you may sometimes see an old hare lurking in a hedgerow. there will often be a group of younger hares, out of sight, waiting for his signal that it is safe to cross.

These older hares, who take on this communal task, are known as hare traffic controllers.

  • Like 2
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...
52 minutes ago, DiveController said:

So who pays for the damage caused to the bridge etc, the HGV insurance?

I suspect that most HGV drivers use GPS navigation. Easy to have a database of bridge heights and input your vehicle heights if they can manage that much

You would imagine so, on both accounts.

I understand that you can, at a price, use a satnav that has a height allowance function - it may be that not everybody wants to pay for it.

Also, the 'height' of some bridges, with an arch shape, is based on passing through it between marks, if the marks are there.

The demolition of the motorway bridge in Kent a couple of years ago happened because the truck was on the hard shoulder, it would have passed under, if it had been on the main carriageway.

For a 'standard' truck, the height may be fairly well known, but, if you've just nipped out to pick up a digger or a loaded skip, it may be a bit more work - or a guess.

Another possible problem for some people is the imperial/metric confusion that can occur on these islands.

There can even be problems where the height, where the road dips below the bridge, may be based on a vehicle length that can be shorter than the odd thing venturing through it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a legendary story about a giant crane HGV going down the N81 years ago near Tallaght, striking an overpass bridge, initially it looked like the crane was liable so the matter went to insurance, but a young exec in the crane's insurance company checked into matters deeper and discovered the road had been resurfaced on multiple occasions without removing the previous strata, increasing the top of the road surface, therefore reducing the minimal regulatory clearance under the bridge, so instead of the crane's insurance paying out, Dublin Co-Co had to pay for the damage to the crane because their bridge was too low!!! Fact or fiction, I'm not sure but folks in the area swear by it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Noel said:

There was a legendary story about a giant crane HGV going down the N81 years ago near Tallaght, striking an overpass bridge, initially it looked like the crane was liable so the matter went to insurance, but a young exec in the crane's insurance company checked into matters deeper and discovered the road had been resurfaced on multiple occasions without removing the previous strata, increasing the top of the road surface, therefore reducing the minimal regulatory clearance under the bridge, so instead of the crane's insurance paying out, Dublin Co-Co had to pay for the damage to the crane because their bridge was too low!!! Fact or fiction, I'm not sure but folks in the area swear by it.

There is this odd one near me, where the southbound side has about five feet more height than the northbound carriageway - both sides were originally the standard 'full-height', hence there being no height indications. The southbound side was dropped to allow transformer transporters to use it - usually in the middle of rush hours...

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.9019984,-2.1585535,3a,75y,173.07h,93.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa_zuu1gSdHEmK59GYfdaxw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

We also have this one - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.7895133,-1.9951013,3a,75y,44.29h,93.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBXb9onOlxXhGlhtr9fAlJw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 - which, entertainingly, is actually on a bus route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hexagon789 said:

The gap in the fence makes it even more intriguing, they managed to miss a parked car AND a planter on the platform:

EkSuHBZXsAAPPJP.jpeg.thumb.jpg.c98ce9cf61b4358ef67c3a94d7c77fe6.jpg

Automatic, nosing in a bit fast, hit the throttle instead of the brake...

 

... then kept pressing the 'brake' harder...

At a guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favourite part from last week's news piece on IÉ fitting sensors before some of the more stricken bridges was when the haulier rep called for them to be placed before ALL bridges - more or less suggesting that his own members are incompetent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, skinner75 said:

Big I-beam mounted in front of the bridge I say

http://11foot8.com/

They've done this one - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.879697,-2.1106227,3a,63.4y,290.68h,90.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suEiVvGFkOFfE3HugUaRFLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 - near me a few years ago.

It's only just 'under height', but it's out-of-town and so the speeds will be higher.

I don't think it's been hit yet.

With a skew bridge in this direction, though, you've also got the (slight?) possibility of rolling the impacting vehicle onto the opposing traffic.

Using the bridge abutments is cheaper I suppose, though, than building new remote supports for a separately located sacrificial beam, although that could be arranged to be orthogonal to the impact direction.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much does each laser system cost though, plus maintenance?

Also, the sign can just be ignored by the driver & the bridge still hit. Once the I beam is perpendicular to the road, it shouldn't roll the truck onto the other side of the road either. Or slant the I beam off to the kerb side to prevent it. Either way, stops the bridge being hit, where the truck could roll into oncoming traffic anyway - as was almost the case in the Amiens St pic above. It is far easier to replace an I beam than to have to inspect/repair the bridge, let alone the nasty accident that could occur if the rail gauge was damaged by the strike. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rolling it to the kerb side can increase the excitement potential for pedestrians and cyclists.

A separately-mounted beam requires substantial support, to avoid that coming down and adding to the danger.

There's usually no simple, cheap and complete solution.

There are often competing "owners", who may have different perceptions of the problem to them.

In the one on the A51 above, it might have been 'better' to drop the road surface a few inches and forget about it, but that was a Highways issue and Network Rail 'owned' the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, skinner75 said:

Big I-beam mounted in front of the bridge I say

http://11foot8.com/

LMAO

You can hear him accelerate to gun the red light. Literacy might be a problem for him too. The guy turning right decided to take another route with less debris. Only comment would be to have the I-beam much further from the under bridge in suitable locations (not here), may 200 feet. We've see seen a lot artics/big rigs pass quite a long distance under the bridge before coming to the halt if the clearance is marginal and the trail deformable. Better to hit an I-beam than the the bridge.

 Agree with @Broithe probably better place on a section of straight road before the bridge itself.

A buttressing bar behind the I-beam on each side will add considerably to the strength

Edited by DiveController
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, skinner75 said:

Big I-beam mounted in front of the bridge I say

http://11foot8.com/

Passive protection is the simplest and most effective with minimal inspection and maintenance requirements.

Kiwirail use square box section for bridge strike protection. Most of the bridge abutments are mass or reinforced concrete so its simple enough to widen the abutments to support the beams.

https://nzrailphotos.co.nz/photos/miscellaneous-and-happenings?page=13#lg=1&slide=11

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Ah yes. Another innocent victim of a level crossing in this country. All that signage as you approach, along with the red lights, road markings and not forgetting the big gates bouncing about as they descend. Understandably, It can be quite hard to work out what's up ahead. Gobshite. 

  • Like 1
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DiveController said:

The problem is a lack of respect.

On 7/12/2018 at 11:07 AM, JasonB said:
On 6/12/2018 at 11:32 PM, Horsetan said:

Maybe they should install those rising bollards / ramps directly in line with the barriers?

Unfortunately the cost would considerably outweigh the benefits. But yes, it would be a deterrent and make someone think twice after they have to pick what's left of their engine out of the dashboard. 

I touched on this previously Kevin, but there didn't seem to be much interest when suggested at the time :D  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use