Lorry smashes into railway bridge in Romsey

VIDEO: Lorry smashes into railway bridge

The lorry which has crashed into the railway bridge in Greatbridge Road, Romsey

The lorry which has crashed into the railway bridge in Greatbridge Road, Romsey

Lorry smashes into railway bridge

Lorry smashes into railway bridge

Lorry smashes into railway bridge

VIDEO: Lorry smashes into railway bridge

First published in News
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Reporter

A LORRY crashed into a railway bridge and toppled over this morning, causing fears about the structure's integrity.

Firefighters, police and ambulance are at Greatbridge Road at the railway bridge where the lorry has collided with the side wall and is lying precariously on one side.

Roads around the area were blocked off including Duttons Road at the junction with Malmesbury Road.

Police reported concerns about the bridge structure following the collision.

Recovery crews manoeuvred to get behind the vehicle, which had tipped debris onto nearby waste land close to the river which runs under the road.

Rail passengers were affected in an operation to retrieve a stricken lorry, with services passing slowly over the bridge or even being cancelled altogether.

Police stopped train services at 11.30am to allow the refuse vehicle to be removed safely then the bridge was inspected for damage.

Engineers from Network Rail were on site assessing the bridge.

Daily Echo:

PC Brendan Moseley, officer in the case from Totton Roads policing unit said there was concern about the safety of the railway bridge structure and trains were told to take precautions when using it, travelling at 10 miles an hour.

However, from talking to Network Rail, PC Moseley said there did not appear to be any new damage to the railway bridge.

He said officers were called to the incident where a waste vehicle had got trapped under the bridge at 9.15am.

The driver, a man in his 30s from the Southampton area, was uninjured and released by paramedics at the scene.

Daily Echo:

PC Moseley said the lorry had been recently loaded, but would not speculate on where it had come from.

He added: "The lorry's come down the road under a bridge with a height restriction and the lorry's clearly too high for the bridge so it's stuck the defence the railway's actually put in place to protect the bridge, that's why it's in the position it's in now.

"It pushed the lorry over prior to it getting under the bridge.

"It's carrying non hazardous waste.

 

"The company involved once the vehicle's recovered is going to clear up all the waste.
"the driver is uninjured.  He will be spoken to by police in relation to what's happened."

The waste truck was been successfully moved away from the bridge by 2pm.

Police said Network Rail had told him that the bridge was structurally sound and said trains were now flowing normally and there had been minimal disruption.

He said while they had timed manoeuvring of the vehicle to coincide with gaps in trains coming through at a slow pace.

Daily Echo:

Due to the imbalance in the vehicle they had to remove some of the waste and because the chassis of the vehicle was damaged they had to transfer the waste bin to a different lorry.

Most of the roads have re-opened apart from Greatbridge Road from the roundabout with Duttons Lane and just before Budds Lane.

 

 

Comments (51)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:47am Fri 14 Mar 14

S!monOn says...

Fine and sack the driver. It's happened too many times at that bridge and it's about time people take this more seriously and bigger punishments need to be handed out.
Fine and sack the driver. It's happened too many times at that bridge and it's about time people take this more seriously and bigger punishments need to be handed out. S!monOn
  • Score: 39

10:56am Fri 14 Mar 14

espanuel says...

S!monOn wrote:
Fine and sack the driver. It's happened too many times at that bridge and it's about time people take this more seriously and bigger punishments need to be handed out.
The driver might have had an illness.
[quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: Fine and sack the driver. It's happened too many times at that bridge and it's about time people take this more seriously and bigger punishments need to be handed out.[/p][/quote]The driver might have had an illness. espanuel
  • Score: -27

10:58am Fri 14 Mar 14

bigfella777 says...

Should of gone to specsavers or it could have been the fog?
Should of gone to specsavers or it could have been the fog? bigfella777
  • Score: 10

11:12am Fri 14 Mar 14

Torchie1 says...

S!monOn wrote:
Fine and sack the driver. It's happened too many times at that bridge and it's about time people take this more seriously and bigger punishments need to be handed out.
As the driver passed a sign at eye height sitting 2 metres from the kerb that informed him that there was a height restriction of 4.3 metres ahead of him, I have to agree with you. Perhaps the bar for obtaining an HGV licence should be raised as it seems that too many incompetents are getting the licence to drive them.
[quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: Fine and sack the driver. It's happened too many times at that bridge and it's about time people take this more seriously and bigger punishments need to be handed out.[/p][/quote]As the driver passed a sign at eye height sitting 2 metres from the kerb that informed him that there was a height restriction of 4.3 metres ahead of him, I have to agree with you. Perhaps the bar for obtaining an HGV licence should be raised as it seems that too many incompetents are getting the licence to drive them. Torchie1
  • Score: 29

11:15am Fri 14 Mar 14

Huey says...

espanuel wrote:
S!monOn wrote: Fine and sack the driver. It's happened too many times at that bridge and it's about time people take this more seriously and bigger punishments need to be handed out.
The driver might have had an illness.
What, and illness that made him down drive a road unsuitable for lorries?
Get real!
So many of these so called professional drivers are a joke.
That only thing unusual about this story is that it isn't a double decker bus.
[quote][p][bold]espanuel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: Fine and sack the driver. It's happened too many times at that bridge and it's about time people take this more seriously and bigger punishments need to be handed out.[/p][/quote]The driver might have had an illness.[/p][/quote]What, and illness that made him down drive a road unsuitable for lorries? Get real! So many of these so called professional drivers are a joke. That only thing unusual about this story is that it isn't a double decker bus. Huey
  • Score: 20

11:18am Fri 14 Mar 14

S!monOn says...

espanuel wrote:
S!monOn wrote:
Fine and sack the driver. It's happened too many times at that bridge and it's about time people take this more seriously and bigger punishments need to be handed out.
The driver might have had an illness.
If he had a heart attack or sudden illness, then I apologise. If he is seriously ill - I do hope he makes a swift recovery.

But, as there is no mention of any illness, or that a paramedic or ambulance had attended the scene then the assumption is that it is down to driver error.
[quote][p][bold]espanuel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: Fine and sack the driver. It's happened too many times at that bridge and it's about time people take this more seriously and bigger punishments need to be handed out.[/p][/quote]The driver might have had an illness.[/p][/quote]If he had a heart attack or sudden illness, then I apologise. If he is seriously ill - I do hope he makes a swift recovery. But, as there is no mention of any illness, or that a paramedic or ambulance had attended the scene then the assumption is that it is down to driver error. S!monOn
  • Score: 10

11:29am Fri 14 Mar 14

Frank28 says...

This must be the most damaged railway bridge in Britain. Lorry drivers who drive into low bridges usually get their licenses endorsed.
This must be the most damaged railway bridge in Britain. Lorry drivers who drive into low bridges usually get their licenses endorsed. Frank28
  • Score: 1

11:30am Fri 14 Mar 14

Likesadrink says...

Driver might have nicked it, seems to have done a runner anyway according to the report. Saw this recently in Basingstoke, someone nicked a lorry and smashed it into the train Bridge/ Tunnel outside my office right next to the station and had it on his toes as 2 mateys from my Office chased him. Surely a trained HGV driver wouldn't make such an obvious mistake?
Driver might have nicked it, seems to have done a runner anyway according to the report. Saw this recently in Basingstoke, someone nicked a lorry and smashed it into the train Bridge/ Tunnel outside my office right next to the station and had it on his toes as 2 mateys from my Office chased him. Surely a trained HGV driver wouldn't make such an obvious mistake? Likesadrink
  • Score: 4

11:31am Fri 14 Mar 14

peter02380 says...

S!monOn wrote:
Fine and sack the driver. It's happened too many times at that bridge and it's about time people take this more seriously and bigger punishments need to be handed out.
I think you'll find that its a instant £1000 fine to the company and also a £500 fine to the driver.
[quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: Fine and sack the driver. It's happened too many times at that bridge and it's about time people take this more seriously and bigger punishments need to be handed out.[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that its a instant £1000 fine to the company and also a £500 fine to the driver. peter02380
  • Score: 8

12:17pm Fri 14 Mar 14

151211 says...

Maybe you should all stop jumping to conclusions and read the above correctly, an ambulance is in attendance and nowhere does it say that the driver has run off. None of you know what actually happened so maybe wait for all of the facts before you start slating the driver !
Maybe you should all stop jumping to conclusions and read the above correctly, an ambulance is in attendance and nowhere does it say that the driver has run off. None of you know what actually happened so maybe wait for all of the facts before you start slating the driver ! 151211
  • Score: 6

12:24pm Fri 14 Mar 14

hulla baloo says...

Is about time a bar was suspended on poles and placed across the road, prior to the bridge, that is the height of the maximum allowed under the bridge. Better they hit the pole and not the bridge.
Is about time a bar was suspended on poles and placed across the road, prior to the bridge, that is the height of the maximum allowed under the bridge. Better they hit the pole and not the bridge. hulla baloo
  • Score: 20

12:35pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Forest Resident says...

Utter incompetence by the HGV driver, there are simply no excuses when the signage is so clear. The article also quotes the Police as stating that the driver was uninsured, they should never be allowed behind the wheel of an HGV again in that case.
Utter incompetence by the HGV driver, there are simply no excuses when the signage is so clear. The article also quotes the Police as stating that the driver was uninsured, they should never be allowed behind the wheel of an HGV again in that case. Forest Resident
  • Score: 14

12:50pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Zexagon says...

151211 wrote:
Maybe you should all stop jumping to conclusions and read the above correctly, an ambulance is in attendance and nowhere does it say that the driver has run off. None of you know what actually happened so maybe wait for all of the facts before you start slating the driver !
I know what happened.....he drove into a bridge that was too low for the vehicle. Am I right?
[quote][p][bold]151211[/bold] wrote: Maybe you should all stop jumping to conclusions and read the above correctly, an ambulance is in attendance and nowhere does it say that the driver has run off. None of you know what actually happened so maybe wait for all of the facts before you start slating the driver ![/p][/quote]I know what happened.....he drove into a bridge that was too low for the vehicle. Am I right? Zexagon
  • Score: 9

12:54pm Fri 14 Mar 14

S!monOn says...

Zexagon wrote:
151211 wrote:
Maybe you should all stop jumping to conclusions and read the above correctly, an ambulance is in attendance and nowhere does it say that the driver has run off. None of you know what actually happened so maybe wait for all of the facts before you start slating the driver !
I know what happened.....he drove into a bridge that was too low for the vehicle. Am I right?
No, he drove into the barrier protecting the bridge.
[quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]151211[/bold] wrote: Maybe you should all stop jumping to conclusions and read the above correctly, an ambulance is in attendance and nowhere does it say that the driver has run off. None of you know what actually happened so maybe wait for all of the facts before you start slating the driver ![/p][/quote]I know what happened.....he drove into a bridge that was too low for the vehicle. Am I right?[/p][/quote]No, he drove into the barrier protecting the bridge. S!monOn
  • Score: -4

1:02pm Fri 14 Mar 14

dolomiteman says...

S!monOn wrote:
Zexagon wrote:
151211 wrote:
Maybe you should all stop jumping to conclusions and read the above correctly, an ambulance is in attendance and nowhere does it say that the driver has run off. None of you know what actually happened so maybe wait for all of the facts before you start slating the driver !
I know what happened.....he drove into a bridge that was too low for the vehicle. Am I right?
No, he drove into the barrier protecting the bridge.
I'm guessing that '151211' is either the driver or a relative.
[quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]151211[/bold] wrote: Maybe you should all stop jumping to conclusions and read the above correctly, an ambulance is in attendance and nowhere does it say that the driver has run off. None of you know what actually happened so maybe wait for all of the facts before you start slating the driver ![/p][/quote]I know what happened.....he drove into a bridge that was too low for the vehicle. Am I right?[/p][/quote]No, he drove into the barrier protecting the bridge.[/p][/quote]I'm guessing that '151211' is either the driver or a relative. dolomiteman
  • Score: -2

1:03pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Lendon89 says...

151211 wrote:
Maybe you should all stop jumping to conclusions and read the above correctly, an ambulance is in attendance and nowhere does it say that the driver has run off. None of you know what actually happened so maybe wait for all of the facts before you start slating the driver !
I am always seeing waltet trucks going along the roads normally driving like idiots. So wouldn't surprise me if he was driving like a clown like the rest. As for the rest. Maybe waltet should check all their drivers skills and medicals. May cause less problems in the future. Also wouldn't surprise me if there was no insurance or any if the trucks had no service. Company needs a complete over haul....
[quote][p][bold]151211[/bold] wrote: Maybe you should all stop jumping to conclusions and read the above correctly, an ambulance is in attendance and nowhere does it say that the driver has run off. None of you know what actually happened so maybe wait for all of the facts before you start slating the driver ![/p][/quote]I am always seeing waltet trucks going along the roads normally driving like idiots. So wouldn't surprise me if he was driving like a clown like the rest. As for the rest. Maybe waltet should check all their drivers skills and medicals. May cause less problems in the future. Also wouldn't surprise me if there was no insurance or any if the trucks had no service. Company needs a complete over haul.... Lendon89
  • Score: 2

1:05pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Lendon89 says...

dolomiteman wrote:
S!monOn wrote:
Zexagon wrote:
151211 wrote:
Maybe you should all stop jumping to conclusions and read the above correctly, an ambulance is in attendance and nowhere does it say that the driver has run off. None of you know what actually happened so maybe wait for all of the facts before you start slating the driver !
I know what happened.....he drove into a bridge that was too low for the vehicle. Am I right?
No, he drove into the barrier protecting the bridge.
I'm guessing that '151211' is either the driver or a relative.
Or a worker from the timsbury yard... maybe a manager or supervisor. Just saying ;).. still no reason to try and escape facts or driver error which in other words is dangerous driving... ha.
[quote][p][bold]dolomiteman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]151211[/bold] wrote: Maybe you should all stop jumping to conclusions and read the above correctly, an ambulance is in attendance and nowhere does it say that the driver has run off. None of you know what actually happened so maybe wait for all of the facts before you start slating the driver ![/p][/quote]I know what happened.....he drove into a bridge that was too low for the vehicle. Am I right?[/p][/quote]No, he drove into the barrier protecting the bridge.[/p][/quote]I'm guessing that '151211' is either the driver or a relative.[/p][/quote]Or a worker from the timsbury yard... maybe a manager or supervisor. Just saying ;).. still no reason to try and escape facts or driver error which in other words is dangerous driving... ha. Lendon89
  • Score: 0

1:05pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Lendon89 says...

dolomiteman wrote:
S!monOn wrote:
Zexagon wrote:
151211 wrote:
Maybe you should all stop jumping to conclusions and read the above correctly, an ambulance is in attendance and nowhere does it say that the driver has run off. None of you know what actually happened so maybe wait for all of the facts before you start slating the driver !
I know what happened.....he drove into a bridge that was too low for the vehicle. Am I right?
No, he drove into the barrier protecting the bridge.
I'm guessing that '151211' is either the driver or a relative.
Or a worker from the timsbury yard... maybe a manager or supervisor. Just saying ;).. still no reason to try and escape facts or driver error which in other words is dangerous driving... ha.
[quote][p][bold]dolomiteman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]151211[/bold] wrote: Maybe you should all stop jumping to conclusions and read the above correctly, an ambulance is in attendance and nowhere does it say that the driver has run off. None of you know what actually happened so maybe wait for all of the facts before you start slating the driver ![/p][/quote]I know what happened.....he drove into a bridge that was too low for the vehicle. Am I right?[/p][/quote]No, he drove into the barrier protecting the bridge.[/p][/quote]I'm guessing that '151211' is either the driver or a relative.[/p][/quote]Or a worker from the timsbury yard... maybe a manager or supervisor. Just saying ;).. still no reason to try and escape facts or driver error which in other words is dangerous driving... ha. Lendon89
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Mary80 says...

Surely the company that hired him should have checked he had insurance rather than letting the dangerous idiot loose on our roads where he could easily have killed people
Surely the company that hired him should have checked he had insurance rather than letting the dangerous idiot loose on our roads where he could easily have killed people Mary80
  • Score: 4

1:41pm Fri 14 Mar 14

hulla baloo says...

Mary80 wrote:
Surely the company that hired him should have checked he had insurance rather than letting the dangerous idiot loose on our roads where he could easily have killed people
Where does it say anything about his insurance?
[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Surely the company that hired him should have checked he had insurance rather than letting the dangerous idiot loose on our roads where he could easily have killed people[/p][/quote]Where does it say anything about his insurance? hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

1:50pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

How can you not know how tall your vehicle is? I know it's a roll on/roll off skip but those things should normally have a label with their height on them which is supposed to be added to the height of the truck's bed which I would think, should be labeled somewhere in the cab.
How can you not know how tall your vehicle is? I know it's a roll on/roll off skip but those things should normally have a label with their height on them which is supposed to be added to the height of the truck's bed which I would think, should be labeled somewhere in the cab. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

1:58pm Fri 14 Mar 14

S!monOn says...

hulla baloo wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Surely the company that hired him should have checked he had insurance rather than letting the dangerous idiot loose on our roads where he could easily have killed people
Where does it say anything about his insurance?
The report originally did state "the driver is uninsured", which DE has amended to say "the driver is uninjured".
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Surely the company that hired him should have checked he had insurance rather than letting the dangerous idiot loose on our roads where he could easily have killed people[/p][/quote]Where does it say anything about his insurance?[/p][/quote]The report originally did state "the driver is uninsured", which DE has amended to say "the driver is uninjured". S!monOn
  • Score: 3

2:02pm Fri 14 Mar 14

romseyboy says...

time and time again they do this can they not see don't they know what height they are driving they should be done for undue care and attention wasting police time costs of fire and ambulance and any other cost involved that comes out of public pockets points on license and a max fine imposed then they would have second thoughts
the driver should be made to pick up all the stuff on his own
I know its harsh but they need to learn they are professional drivers who are paid to drive large vehicles
If he was ill im sorry but they all can not blame illness
time and time again they do this can they not see don't they know what height they are driving they should be done for undue care and attention wasting police time costs of fire and ambulance and any other cost involved that comes out of public pockets points on license and a max fine imposed then they would have second thoughts the driver should be made to pick up all the stuff on his own I know its harsh but they need to learn they are professional drivers who are paid to drive large vehicles If he was ill im sorry but they all can not blame illness romseyboy
  • Score: 2

2:03pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Inform Al says...

Forest Resident wrote:
Utter incompetence by the HGV driver, there are simply no excuses when the signage is so clear. The article also quotes the Police as stating that the driver was uninsured, they should never be allowed behind the wheel of an HGV again in that case.
Thats odd, the nearest I can find to uninsured is UNINJURED.
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: Utter incompetence by the HGV driver, there are simply no excuses when the signage is so clear. The article also quotes the Police as stating that the driver was uninsured, they should never be allowed behind the wheel of an HGV again in that case.[/p][/quote]Thats odd, the nearest I can find to uninsured is UNINJURED. Inform Al
  • Score: 4

2:20pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Brock_and_Roll says...

Obviously the attempted poaching of this stag was pretty terrible - made worse by the fact that the poachers were not using the right calibre to do the job properly.

But we should remember that this is a managed herd - numbers overall and the amount of stags are strictly controlled. Monarch was over 16 years old, which is ancient by red deer standards - so he was probably pretty close to getting the bullet anyway, albeit in a much more professional way!
Obviously the attempted poaching of this stag was pretty terrible - made worse by the fact that the poachers were not using the right calibre to do the job properly. But we should remember that this is a managed herd - numbers overall and the amount of stags are strictly controlled. Monarch was over 16 years old, which is ancient by red deer standards - so he was probably pretty close to getting the bullet anyway, albeit in a much more professional way! Brock_and_Roll
  • Score: -3

2:21pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Brock_and_Roll wrote:
Obviously the attempted poaching of this stag was pretty terrible - made worse by the fact that the poachers were not using the right calibre to do the job properly.

But we should remember that this is a managed herd - numbers overall and the amount of stags are strictly controlled. Monarch was over 16 years old, which is ancient by red deer standards - so he was probably pretty close to getting the bullet anyway, albeit in a much more professional way!
Wrong story by a mile.
[quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: Obviously the attempted poaching of this stag was pretty terrible - made worse by the fact that the poachers were not using the right calibre to do the job properly. But we should remember that this is a managed herd - numbers overall and the amount of stags are strictly controlled. Monarch was over 16 years old, which is ancient by red deer standards - so he was probably pretty close to getting the bullet anyway, albeit in a much more professional way![/p][/quote]Wrong story by a mile. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

2:29pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Zexagon says...

Inform Al wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
Utter incompetence by the HGV driver, there are simply no excuses when the signage is so clear. The article also quotes the Police as stating that the driver was uninsured, they should never be allowed behind the wheel of an HGV again in that case.
Thats odd, the nearest I can find to uninsured is UNINJURED.
I wrote that too but mine seems to have been deleted...strange
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: Utter incompetence by the HGV driver, there are simply no excuses when the signage is so clear. The article also quotes the Police as stating that the driver was uninsured, they should never be allowed behind the wheel of an HGV again in that case.[/p][/quote]Thats odd, the nearest I can find to uninsured is UNINJURED.[/p][/quote]I wrote that too but mine seems to have been deleted...strange Zexagon
  • Score: 2

2:48pm Fri 14 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

romseyboy wrote:
time and time again they do this can they not see don't they know what height they are driving they should be done for undue care and attention wasting police time costs of fire and ambulance and any other cost involved that comes out of public pockets points on license and a max fine imposed then they would have second thoughts
the driver should be made to pick up all the stuff on his own
I know its harsh but they need to learn they are professional drivers who are paid to drive large vehicles
If he was ill im sorry but they all can not blame illness
The driver should be made to pick up all the stuff on his own? Are you serious? That's going to take ages. The road would be closed for days. What a cretinous suggestion. Maybe he should be given 100 lines or something.
[quote][p][bold]romseyboy[/bold] wrote: time and time again they do this can they not see don't they know what height they are driving they should be done for undue care and attention wasting police time costs of fire and ambulance and any other cost involved that comes out of public pockets points on license and a max fine imposed then they would have second thoughts the driver should be made to pick up all the stuff on his own I know its harsh but they need to learn they are professional drivers who are paid to drive large vehicles If he was ill im sorry but they all can not blame illness[/p][/quote]The driver should be made to pick up all the stuff on his own? Are you serious? That's going to take ages. The road would be closed for days. What a cretinous suggestion. Maybe he should be given 100 lines or something. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 2

3:02pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Outside of the Box says...

Likesadrink wrote:
Driver might have nicked it, seems to have done a runner anyway according to the report. Saw this recently in Basingstoke, someone nicked a lorry and smashed it into the train Bridge/ Tunnel outside my office right next to the station and had it on his toes as 2 mateys from my Office chased him. Surely a trained HGV driver wouldn't make such an obvious mistake?
The driver, a man in his 30s from the Southampton area, was uninjured and released by paramedics at the scene. Maybe not then!
[quote][p][bold]Likesadrink[/bold] wrote: Driver might have nicked it, seems to have done a runner anyway according to the report. Saw this recently in Basingstoke, someone nicked a lorry and smashed it into the train Bridge/ Tunnel outside my office right next to the station and had it on his toes as 2 mateys from my Office chased him. Surely a trained HGV driver wouldn't make such an obvious mistake?[/p][/quote]The driver, a man in his 30s from the Southampton area, was uninjured and released by paramedics at the scene. Maybe not then! Outside of the Box
  • Score: 0

3:09pm Fri 14 Mar 14

rudolph_hucker says...

romseyboy wrote:
time and time again they do this can they not see don't they know what height they are driving they should be done for undue care and attention wasting police time costs of fire and ambulance and any other cost involved that comes out of public pockets points on license and a max fine imposed then they would have second thoughts the driver should be made to pick up all the stuff on his own I know its harsh but they need to learn they are professional drivers who are paid to drive large vehicles If he was ill im sorry but they all can not blame illness
hahahahaha
[quote][p][bold]romseyboy[/bold] wrote: time and time again they do this can they not see don't they know what height they are driving they should be done for undue care and attention wasting police time costs of fire and ambulance and any other cost involved that comes out of public pockets points on license and a max fine imposed then they would have second thoughts the driver should be made to pick up all the stuff on his own I know its harsh but they need to learn they are professional drivers who are paid to drive large vehicles If he was ill im sorry but they all can not blame illness[/p][/quote]hahahahaha rudolph_hucker
  • Score: -2

3:15pm Fri 14 Mar 14

romseyboy says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
romseyboy wrote:
time and time again they do this can they not see don't they know what height they are driving they should be done for undue care and attention wasting police time costs of fire and ambulance and any other cost involved that comes out of public pockets points on license and a max fine imposed then they would have second thoughts
the driver should be made to pick up all the stuff on his own
I know its harsh but they need to learn they are professional drivers who are paid to drive large vehicles
If he was ill im sorry but they all can not blame illness
The driver should be made to pick up all the stuff on his own? Are you serious? That's going to take ages. The road would be closed for days. What a cretinous suggestion. Maybe he should be given 100 lines or something.
The spillage is off the road not on it so can be done from behind the barrier to the left if you at the picture and quoted in
Recovery crews manoeuvred to get behind the vehicle, which had tipped debris onto nearby waste land close to the river which runs under the road.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]romseyboy[/bold] wrote: time and time again they do this can they not see don't they know what height they are driving they should be done for undue care and attention wasting police time costs of fire and ambulance and any other cost involved that comes out of public pockets points on license and a max fine imposed then they would have second thoughts the driver should be made to pick up all the stuff on his own I know its harsh but they need to learn they are professional drivers who are paid to drive large vehicles If he was ill im sorry but they all can not blame illness[/p][/quote]The driver should be made to pick up all the stuff on his own? Are you serious? That's going to take ages. The road would be closed for days. What a cretinous suggestion. Maybe he should be given 100 lines or something.[/p][/quote]The spillage is off the road not on it so can be done from behind the barrier to the left if you at the picture and quoted in Recovery crews manoeuvred to get behind the vehicle, which had tipped debris onto nearby waste land close to the river which runs under the road. romseyboy
  • Score: -4

3:36pm Fri 14 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

romseyboy wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
romseyboy wrote:
time and time again they do this can they not see don't they know what height they are driving they should be done for undue care and attention wasting police time costs of fire and ambulance and any other cost involved that comes out of public pockets points on license and a max fine imposed then they would have second thoughts
the driver should be made to pick up all the stuff on his own
I know its harsh but they need to learn they are professional drivers who are paid to drive large vehicles
If he was ill im sorry but they all can not blame illness
The driver should be made to pick up all the stuff on his own? Are you serious? That's going to take ages. The road would be closed for days. What a cretinous suggestion. Maybe he should be given 100 lines or something.
The spillage is off the road not on it so can be done from behind the barrier to the left if you at the picture and quoted in
Recovery crews manoeuvred to get behind the vehicle, which had tipped debris onto nearby waste land close to the river which runs under the road.
And he's going to do what with it, exactly? Eat it?
[quote][p][bold]romseyboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]romseyboy[/bold] wrote: time and time again they do this can they not see don't they know what height they are driving they should be done for undue care and attention wasting police time costs of fire and ambulance and any other cost involved that comes out of public pockets points on license and a max fine imposed then they would have second thoughts the driver should be made to pick up all the stuff on his own I know its harsh but they need to learn they are professional drivers who are paid to drive large vehicles If he was ill im sorry but they all can not blame illness[/p][/quote]The driver should be made to pick up all the stuff on his own? Are you serious? That's going to take ages. The road would be closed for days. What a cretinous suggestion. Maybe he should be given 100 lines or something.[/p][/quote]The spillage is off the road not on it so can be done from behind the barrier to the left if you at the picture and quoted in Recovery crews manoeuvred to get behind the vehicle, which had tipped debris onto nearby waste land close to the river which runs under the road.[/p][/quote]And he's going to do what with it, exactly? Eat it? gilbertratchet
  • Score: 0

3:44pm Fri 14 Mar 14

espanuel says...

Huey wrote:
espanuel wrote:
S!monOn wrote: Fine and sack the driver. It's happened too many times at that bridge and it's about time people take this more seriously and bigger punishments need to be handed out.
The driver might have had an illness.
What, and illness that made him down drive a road unsuitable for lorries?
Get real!
So many of these so called professional drivers are a joke.
That only thing unusual about this story is that it isn't a double decker bus.
I wrote this before the full story came out knuckle head.
[quote][p][bold]Huey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]espanuel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: Fine and sack the driver. It's happened too many times at that bridge and it's about time people take this more seriously and bigger punishments need to be handed out.[/p][/quote]The driver might have had an illness.[/p][/quote]What, and illness that made him down drive a road unsuitable for lorries? Get real! So many of these so called professional drivers are a joke. That only thing unusual about this story is that it isn't a double decker bus.[/p][/quote]I wrote this before the full story came out knuckle head. espanuel
  • Score: -1

3:45pm Fri 14 Mar 14

eurogordi says...

About a year ago my daughter's parked car was hit by a HGV vehicle that was attempting to go down a road that had both width and weight restrictions, causing substantial damage. Someone saw the incident and my daughter went through her insurers based on the information received. The lorry company based in Exeter denied that it was one of its vehicles but, fortunately for my daughter, the incident had also been captured by good quality CCTV that confirmed the registration number and identified the driver. It then turned out that the driver was following his SatNav!! Isn't it time that HGV driver's were told to use their eyes and follow physical warning signs (or even good old fashioned common sense) rather than rely on technology? I'm not saying that this happened at the bridge in Romsey, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if a SatNav wasn't at the heart of this problem.
About a year ago my daughter's parked car was hit by a HGV vehicle that was attempting to go down a road that had both width and weight restrictions, causing substantial damage. Someone saw the incident and my daughter went through her insurers based on the information received. The lorry company based in Exeter denied that it was one of its vehicles but, fortunately for my daughter, the incident had also been captured by good quality CCTV that confirmed the registration number and identified the driver. It then turned out that the driver was following his SatNav!! Isn't it time that HGV driver's were told to use their eyes and follow physical warning signs (or even good old fashioned common sense) rather than rely on technology? I'm not saying that this happened at the bridge in Romsey, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if a SatNav wasn't at the heart of this problem. eurogordi
  • Score: 1

3:46pm Fri 14 Mar 14

S!monOn says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
romseyboy wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
romseyboy wrote:
time and time again they do this can they not see don't they know what height they are driving they should be done for undue care and attention wasting police time costs of fire and ambulance and any other cost involved that comes out of public pockets points on license and a max fine imposed then they would have second thoughts
the driver should be made to pick up all the stuff on his own
I know its harsh but they need to learn they are professional drivers who are paid to drive large vehicles
If he was ill im sorry but they all can not blame illness
The driver should be made to pick up all the stuff on his own? Are you serious? That's going to take ages. The road would be closed for days. What a cretinous suggestion. Maybe he should be given 100 lines or something.
The spillage is off the road not on it so can be done from behind the barrier to the left if you at the picture and quoted in
Recovery crews manoeuvred to get behind the vehicle, which had tipped debris onto nearby waste land close to the river which runs under the road.
And he's going to do what with it, exactly? Eat it?
Are you always right in your household Mr ratchet... or do your family have to put up with this too?
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]romseyboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]romseyboy[/bold] wrote: time and time again they do this can they not see don't they know what height they are driving they should be done for undue care and attention wasting police time costs of fire and ambulance and any other cost involved that comes out of public pockets points on license and a max fine imposed then they would have second thoughts the driver should be made to pick up all the stuff on his own I know its harsh but they need to learn they are professional drivers who are paid to drive large vehicles If he was ill im sorry but they all can not blame illness[/p][/quote]The driver should be made to pick up all the stuff on his own? Are you serious? That's going to take ages. The road would be closed for days. What a cretinous suggestion. Maybe he should be given 100 lines or something.[/p][/quote]The spillage is off the road not on it so can be done from behind the barrier to the left if you at the picture and quoted in Recovery crews manoeuvred to get behind the vehicle, which had tipped debris onto nearby waste land close to the river which runs under the road.[/p][/quote]And he's going to do what with it, exactly? Eat it?[/p][/quote]Are you always right in your household Mr ratchet... or do your family have to put up with this too? S!monOn
  • Score: -1

3:48pm Fri 14 Mar 14

espanuel says...

151211 wrote:
Maybe you should all stop jumping to conclusions and read the above correctly, an ambulance is in attendance and nowhere does it say that the driver has run off. None of you know what actually happened so maybe wait for all of the facts before you start slating the driver !
I'm glad somebody agrees with me, my comment was made just after the news came out i.e. Huey only wants to read what he wants to read.
[quote][p][bold]151211[/bold] wrote: Maybe you should all stop jumping to conclusions and read the above correctly, an ambulance is in attendance and nowhere does it say that the driver has run off. None of you know what actually happened so maybe wait for all of the facts before you start slating the driver ![/p][/quote]I'm glad somebody agrees with me, my comment was made just after the news came out i.e. Huey only wants to read what he wants to read. espanuel
  • Score: 0

4:24pm Fri 14 Mar 14

wwozzer says...

This bridge has been hit more times than Ian Beale, Hardly news.
This bridge has been hit more times than Ian Beale, Hardly news. wwozzer
  • Score: 2

5:00pm Fri 14 Mar 14

St.Ray says...

espanuel wrote:
S!monOn wrote:
Fine and sack the driver. It's happened too many times at that bridge and it's about time people take this more seriously and bigger punishments need to be handed out.
The driver might have had an illness.
The only illness the driver suffered is the inability to read!! Nowadays called dyscalculia, "dyslexia of numbers" But all non existent "illnesses, invented by lazy teachers & parents of thickos
[quote][p][bold]espanuel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: Fine and sack the driver. It's happened too many times at that bridge and it's about time people take this more seriously and bigger punishments need to be handed out.[/p][/quote]The driver might have had an illness.[/p][/quote]The only illness the driver suffered is the inability to read!! Nowadays called dyscalculia, "dyslexia of numbers" But all non existent "illnesses, invented by lazy teachers & parents of thickos St.Ray
  • Score: 1

5:01pm Fri 14 Mar 14

St.Ray says...

espanuel wrote:
S!monOn wrote:
Fine and sack the driver. It's happened too many times at that bridge and it's about time people take this more seriously and bigger punishments need to be handed out.
The driver might have had an illness.
The only illness the driver suffered is the inability to read!! Nowadays called dyscalculia, "dyslexia of numbers" But all non existent "illnesses, invented by lazy teachers & parents of thickos
[quote][p][bold]espanuel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: Fine and sack the driver. It's happened too many times at that bridge and it's about time people take this more seriously and bigger punishments need to be handed out.[/p][/quote]The driver might have had an illness.[/p][/quote]The only illness the driver suffered is the inability to read!! Nowadays called dyscalculia, "dyslexia of numbers" But all non existent "illnesses, invented by lazy teachers & parents of thickos St.Ray
  • Score: -1

5:53pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

eurogordi wrote:
About a year ago my daughter's parked car was hit by a HGV vehicle that was attempting to go down a road that had both width and weight restrictions, causing substantial damage. Someone saw the incident and my daughter went through her insurers based on the information received. The lorry company based in Exeter denied that it was one of its vehicles but, fortunately for my daughter, the incident had also been captured by good quality CCTV that confirmed the registration number and identified the driver. It then turned out that the driver was following his SatNav!! Isn't it time that HGV driver's were told to use their eyes and follow physical warning signs (or even good old fashioned common sense) rather than rely on technology? I'm not saying that this happened at the bridge in Romsey, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if a SatNav wasn't at the heart of this problem.
The ones that hit bridges and stuff probably think that their car sat navs will be fine rather than getting one designed for large vehicles which are programmed to avoid roads with low bridges or width/weight restrictions.
[quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: About a year ago my daughter's parked car was hit by a HGV vehicle that was attempting to go down a road that had both width and weight restrictions, causing substantial damage. Someone saw the incident and my daughter went through her insurers based on the information received. The lorry company based in Exeter denied that it was one of its vehicles but, fortunately for my daughter, the incident had also been captured by good quality CCTV that confirmed the registration number and identified the driver. It then turned out that the driver was following his SatNav!! Isn't it time that HGV driver's were told to use their eyes and follow physical warning signs (or even good old fashioned common sense) rather than rely on technology? I'm not saying that this happened at the bridge in Romsey, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if a SatNav wasn't at the heart of this problem.[/p][/quote]The ones that hit bridges and stuff probably think that their car sat navs will be fine rather than getting one designed for large vehicles which are programmed to avoid roads with low bridges or width/weight restrictions. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

9:13pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Stroppy_gramps says...

Nice to see no one is thinking of all the times HGV's have succesfully NOT hit this bridge.

the height of the vehicle is usually put in a prominent place in the cab where the driver can easily see it. Do drivers make mistakes? yes, all the time - just like any other kind of user of the roads.
anyone been killed? no.
so can we not jump on the 'automatically hate all truck drivers' bandwagon please.

and before you start hating me - I am currently dealing with an accident caused by a driver in a luton van driving into a low bridge. Height of the vehicle stencilled on the top line of the windscreen on the drivers side. when I checked google streetview - clear signage showing the height of the bridge. Drivers argument? the bridge wasn't marked.

£8000 insurance claim. nice.

but it's a mistake, nothing more, nothing less. The important thing is that no one died.
Nice to see no one is thinking of all the times HGV's have succesfully NOT hit this bridge. the height of the vehicle is usually put in a prominent place in the cab where the driver can easily see it. Do drivers make mistakes? yes, all the time - just like any other kind of user of the roads. anyone been killed? no. so can we not jump on the 'automatically hate all truck drivers' bandwagon please. and before you start hating me - I am currently dealing with an accident caused by a driver in a luton van driving into a low bridge. Height of the vehicle stencilled on the top line of the windscreen on the drivers side. when I checked google streetview - clear signage showing the height of the bridge. Drivers argument? the bridge wasn't marked. £8000 insurance claim. nice. but it's a mistake, nothing more, nothing less. The important thing is that no one died. Stroppy_gramps
  • Score: 7

10:55pm Fri 14 Mar 14

miltonarcher says...

Just look at the way most HGV's are being driven. They tailgate each other. Conclusion, most of the drivers are as thick as pig $h1t . Bridge, wot bridge.
Just look at the way most HGV's are being driven. They tailgate each other. Conclusion, most of the drivers are as thick as pig $h1t . Bridge, wot bridge. miltonarcher
  • Score: 0

1:50am Sat 15 Mar 14

Mary80 says...

If people blindly follow sat navs they need an IQ test ASAP
If people blindly follow sat navs they need an IQ test ASAP Mary80
  • Score: -2

9:16am Sat 15 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Mary80 wrote:
If people blindly follow sat navs they need an IQ test ASAP
Says the queen of not judging anyone without all the facts. GTFO woman.
[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: If people blindly follow sat navs they need an IQ test ASAP[/p][/quote]Says the queen of not judging anyone without all the facts. GTFO woman. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 3

3:48pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Saintly Sam says...

Huey wrote:
espanuel wrote:
S!monOn wrote: Fine and sack the driver. It's happened too many times at that bridge and it's about time people take this more seriously and bigger punishments need to be handed out.
The driver might have had an illness.
What, and illness that made him down drive a road unsuitable for lorries?
Get real!
So many of these so called professional drivers are a joke.
That only thing unusual about this story is that it isn't a double decker bus.
This is only an assumption, but it could be that the driver usually uses a different vehicle, something not quite as high, so inadvertently used his usual route, near where I live we have a span bridge that single deckers could easily get under but not double deckers, every once in a while we would hear an almighty crash as a DD hit the bridge, they eventually lowered the road surface to allow all buses to be able to travel under it.
Having said that I am sure there is a height restriction sign on all approaches to this bridge that will flash a warning if an over height vehicle breaks the beam,
Another assumption, perhaps the driver does not have a good command of the English language or is dyslexic?
To all of you folk who want this driver fined, sacked, shot, just remember, no one was hurt and and nobody is perfect....except Joanna Lumley.
[quote][p][bold]Huey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]espanuel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: Fine and sack the driver. It's happened too many times at that bridge and it's about time people take this more seriously and bigger punishments need to be handed out.[/p][/quote]The driver might have had an illness.[/p][/quote]What, and illness that made him down drive a road unsuitable for lorries? Get real! So many of these so called professional drivers are a joke. That only thing unusual about this story is that it isn't a double decker bus.[/p][/quote]This is only an assumption, but it could be that the driver usually uses a different vehicle, something not quite as high, so inadvertently used his usual route, near where I live we have a span bridge that single deckers could easily get under but not double deckers, every once in a while we would hear an almighty crash as a DD hit the bridge, they eventually lowered the road surface to allow all buses to be able to travel under it. Having said that I am sure there is a height restriction sign on all approaches to this bridge that will flash a warning if an over height vehicle breaks the beam, Another assumption, perhaps the driver does not have a good command of the English language or is dyslexic? To all of you folk who want this driver fined, sacked, shot, just remember, no one was hurt and and nobody is perfect....except Joanna Lumley. Saintly Sam
  • Score: 2

4:01pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Saintly Sam says...

miltonarcher wrote:
Just look at the way most HGV's are being driven. They tailgate each other. Conclusion, most of the drivers are as thick as pig $h1t . Bridge, wot bridge.
Have you ever taken a class 1 test?

Have you ever taken a HIAB or HAZMAT test?

Have you seen the way some other road users treat HGV drivers?

Truck drivers, and yes, I am one, are, for the most part, skilled professionals, we do an essential and honest job, we do not need loudmouths like you spouting off your ill judged and mistaken opinions.

Those who can, do, those who can't, criticize.
[quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Just look at the way most HGV's are being driven. They tailgate each other. Conclusion, most of the drivers are as thick as pig $h1t . Bridge, wot bridge.[/p][/quote]Have you ever taken a class 1 test? Have you ever taken a HIAB or HAZMAT test? Have you seen the way some other road users treat HGV drivers? Truck drivers, and yes, I am one, are, for the most part, skilled professionals, we do an essential and honest job, we do not need loudmouths like you spouting off your ill judged and mistaken opinions. Those who can, do, those who can't, criticize. Saintly Sam
  • Score: 4

5:44pm Sat 15 Mar 14

OntheBoundary says...

Forest Resident wrote:
Utter incompetence by the HGV driver, there are simply no excuses when the signage is so clear. The article also quotes the Police as stating that the driver was uninsured, they should never be allowed behind the wheel of an HGV again in that case.
I think it said UNINJURED not UNINSURED.
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: Utter incompetence by the HGV driver, there are simply no excuses when the signage is so clear. The article also quotes the Police as stating that the driver was uninsured, they should never be allowed behind the wheel of an HGV again in that case.[/p][/quote]I think it said UNINJURED not UNINSURED. OntheBoundary
  • Score: 0

5:47pm Sat 15 Mar 14

OntheBoundary says...

Lendon89 wrote:
151211 wrote:
Maybe you should all stop jumping to conclusions and read the above correctly, an ambulance is in attendance and nowhere does it say that the driver has run off. None of you know what actually happened so maybe wait for all of the facts before you start slating the driver !
I am always seeing waltet trucks going along the roads normally driving like idiots. So wouldn't surprise me if he was driving like a clown like the rest. As for the rest. Maybe waltet should check all their drivers skills and medicals. May cause less problems in the future. Also wouldn't surprise me if there was no insurance or any if the trucks had no service. Company needs a complete over haul....
As a local firm, based just up the road at Bunny Lane, they and their drivers should be well aware of this bridge and the Sun Arch. The company must be equally to blame and appropriately pun ished.
[quote][p][bold]Lendon89[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]151211[/bold] wrote: Maybe you should all stop jumping to conclusions and read the above correctly, an ambulance is in attendance and nowhere does it say that the driver has run off. None of you know what actually happened so maybe wait for all of the facts before you start slating the driver ![/p][/quote]I am always seeing waltet trucks going along the roads normally driving like idiots. So wouldn't surprise me if he was driving like a clown like the rest. As for the rest. Maybe waltet should check all their drivers skills and medicals. May cause less problems in the future. Also wouldn't surprise me if there was no insurance or any if the trucks had no service. Company needs a complete over haul....[/p][/quote]As a local firm, based just up the road at Bunny Lane, they and their drivers should be well aware of this bridge and the Sun Arch. The company must be equally to blame and appropriately pun ished. OntheBoundary
  • Score: 2

10:03pm Sat 15 Mar 14

miltonarcher says...

Saintly Sam wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Just look at the way most HGV's are being driven. They tailgate each other. Conclusion, most of the drivers are as thick as pig $h1t . Bridge, wot bridge.
Have you ever taken a class 1 test?

Have you ever taken a HIAB or HAZMAT test?

Have you seen the way some other road users treat HGV drivers?

Truck drivers, and yes, I am one, are, for the most part, skilled professionals, we do an essential and honest job, we do not need loudmouths like you spouting off your ill judged and mistaken opinions.

Those who can, do, those who can't, criticize.
Ha ha ha professional! What a joke. Most of the HGV's I see are tailgating each other, fact.
[quote][p][bold]Saintly Sam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Just look at the way most HGV's are being driven. They tailgate each other. Conclusion, most of the drivers are as thick as pig $h1t . Bridge, wot bridge.[/p][/quote]Have you ever taken a class 1 test? Have you ever taken a HIAB or HAZMAT test? Have you seen the way some other road users treat HGV drivers? Truck drivers, and yes, I am one, are, for the most part, skilled professionals, we do an essential and honest job, we do not need loudmouths like you spouting off your ill judged and mistaken opinions. Those who can, do, those who can't, criticize.[/p][/quote]Ha ha ha professional! What a joke. Most of the HGV's I see are tailgating each other, fact. miltonarcher
  • Score: -5

7:55am Mon 17 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

miltonarcher wrote:
Saintly Sam wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Just look at the way most HGV's are being driven. They tailgate each other. Conclusion, most of the drivers are as thick as pig $h1t . Bridge, wot bridge.
Have you ever taken a class 1 test?

Have you ever taken a HIAB or HAZMAT test?

Have you seen the way some other road users treat HGV drivers?

Truck drivers, and yes, I am one, are, for the most part, skilled professionals, we do an essential and honest job, we do not need loudmouths like you spouting off your ill judged and mistaken opinions.

Those who can, do, those who can't, criticize.
Ha ha ha professional! What a joke. Most of the HGV's I see are tailgating each other, fact.
To save fuel. Funnily enough, it's not all that dangerous for vehicles with long stopping distances moving fairly slowly to be that close to one another.
[quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Saintly Sam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Just look at the way most HGV's are being driven. They tailgate each other. Conclusion, most of the drivers are as thick as pig $h1t . Bridge, wot bridge.[/p][/quote]Have you ever taken a class 1 test? Have you ever taken a HIAB or HAZMAT test? Have you seen the way some other road users treat HGV drivers? Truck drivers, and yes, I am one, are, for the most part, skilled professionals, we do an essential and honest job, we do not need loudmouths like you spouting off your ill judged and mistaken opinions. Those who can, do, those who can't, criticize.[/p][/quote]Ha ha ha professional! What a joke. Most of the HGV's I see are tailgating each other, fact.[/p][/quote]To save fuel. Funnily enough, it's not all that dangerous for vehicles with long stopping distances moving fairly slowly to be that close to one another. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 2

10:46am Wed 19 Mar 14

Chris.C. says...

espanuel wrote:
S!monOn wrote: Fine and sack the driver. It's happened too many times at that bridge and it's about time people take this more seriously and bigger punishments need to be handed out.
The driver might have had an illness.
Make the haulage companies more responsible, there is an alternate route for high vehicles that adds maybe 2 miles to their journey but is safer. Companies should know this, they're just allowing short cuts.
[quote][p][bold]espanuel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: Fine and sack the driver. It's happened too many times at that bridge and it's about time people take this more seriously and bigger punishments need to be handed out.[/p][/quote]The driver might have had an illness.[/p][/quote]Make the haulage companies more responsible, there is an alternate route for high vehicles that adds maybe 2 miles to their journey but is safer. Companies should know this, they're just allowing short cuts. Chris.C.
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree