I am wondering drivers brains don't register the lower orange and black
stripes. Perhaps a colour change to the flourecent yellow and black
would make it stand out better.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60170620

--
mick

On 28/01/2022 16:13, mick wrote:
> I am wondering drivers brains don't register the lower orange and black
> stripes.  Perhaps a colour change to the flourecent yellow and black
> would make it stand out better.
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60170620
>
Personally I think nothing short of a permanent driving ban will make
inroads in these drivers.

On 28/01/2022 16:13, mick wrote:
> I am wondering drivers brains don't register the lower orange and black
> stripes.  Perhaps a colour change to the flourecent yellow and black
> would make it stand out better.
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60170620
>

Two possible explanations:

1. The most likely is that the approach road is downhill. So it is
difficult to judge the bridge height. The driver has to compensate for
slope of the road, and just gets it wrong.

2. The approach road is quite narrow, so that's a distraction for the
driver, as he's being careful not to mount the kerb.

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 28/01/2022 16:13, mick wrote:
>> I am wondering drivers brains don't register the lower orange and black
>> stripes.  Perhaps a colour change to the flourecent yellow and black
>> would make it stand out better.
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60170620
>>
> Personally I think nothing short of a permanent driving ban will make
> inroads in these drivers.
>

Nothing like depriving the working classes of their livelihoods to keep
them in their place eh?

On 28/01/2022 16:29, GB wrote:
> 1. The most likely is that the approach road is downhill. So it is
> difficult to judge the bridge height. The driver has to compensate for
> slope of the road, and just gets it wrong.

It is quite possible. There is an example in Leeming's classic book,
where there were regularly crashes where one road crossed another. He
got the police to assist by watching for cars that did not stop at the
crossroads and pulling them over to ask why. They very soon found that
with the layout, you did not see the crossroads until too late.

The local paper found out and made a fuss about why the police were not
prosecuting people but the roads authority were able to make some minor
(and cheap) alterations which virtually elimated accidents there.

There is restaurant on the A82 where I used to stop and always found it
dangerous rejoining the road because you did not see the white line
leaving the car park. One day I was with a works colleague and he made
the same comment. By chance there was a police car near so we spoke to
the driver. He was not interested because there was nobody he could
charge, road safety did not interest him.

GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
> On 28/01/2022 16:13, mick wrote:
>> I am wondering drivers brains don't register the lower orange and black
>> stripes.  Perhaps a colour change to the flourecent yellow and black
>> would make it stand out better.
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60170620
>>
>
>
> Two possible explanations:
>
> 1. The most likely is that the approach road is downhill. So it is
> difficult to judge the bridge height. The driver has to compensate for
> slope of the road, and just gets it wrong.
>
> 2. The approach road is quite narrow, so that's a distraction for the
> driver, as he's being careful not to mount the kerb.
>
>
>

Some decent scientific research into why drivers keep driving into bridges
might be useful. There’s probably several common themes.

In message <mn.e3cd7e6133e3cd91.143772@junk.mail>, at 16:13:52 on Fri,
28 Jan 2022, mick <nospam@junk.mail> remarked:
>I am wondering drivers brains don't register the lower orange and black
>stripes. Perhaps a colour change to the flourecent yellow and black
>would make it stand out better.
>
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60170620

The reason there's no disruption to GA services (or any other passenger
TOC) is because all it hit was the bridge carrying the goods loop.
--
Roland Perry

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 28/01/2022 16:29, GB wrote:
>> 1. The most likely is that the approach road is downhill. So it is
>> difficult to judge the bridge height. The driver has to compensate for
>> slope of the road, and just gets it wrong.
>
> It is quite possible. There is an example in Leeming's classic book,
> where there were regularly crashes where one road crossed another. He
> got the police to assist by watching for cars that did not stop at the
> crossroads and pulling them over to ask why. They very soon found that
> with the layout, you did not see the crossroads until too late.
>
> The local paper found out and made a fuss about why the police were not
> prosecuting people but the roads authority were able to make some minor
> (and cheap) alterations which virtually elimated accidents there.
>
>

See also: <https://youtu.be/SYeeTvitvFU> "Tom Scott: Why this British cross
roads was so dangerous"

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <st15lk$d07$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:29:41 on Fri, 28 Jan
2022, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>On 28/01/2022 16:13, mick wrote:
>> I am wondering drivers brains don't register the lower orange and
>>black stripes.  Perhaps a colour change to the flourecent yellow and
>>black would make it stand out better.
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60170620
>
>Two possible explanations:
>
>1. The most likely is that the approach road is downhill. So it is
>difficult to judge the bridge height. The driver has to compensate for
>slope of the road, and just gets it wrong.
>
>2. The approach road is quite narrow, so that's a distraction for the
>driver, as he's being careful not to mount the kerb.

Drivers don't need to be guessing whether they can get through, there is
multiple fixed signage saying "2.7m" and a light beam plus flashing
signs for those who ignore that.

In other news, this is YET ANTHER EXAMPLE OF an extremely common van
configuration which is perhaps half an inch higher than the actual
steelwork, which doesn't excuse them ignoring the height restriction
(which is mandatory rather than advisory - triangle).

BUT if they'd rebuilt this [which they did, it was closed for over a
year while they faffed around] two years ago with a road surface just
an inch lower, then they'd probably have prevented at least
three-quarters of the subsequent bashes.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:50:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

><martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/01/2022 16:13, mick wrote:
>>> I am wondering drivers brains don't register the lower orange and black
>>> stripes.  Perhaps a colour change to the flourecent yellow and black
>>> would make it stand out better.
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60170620
>>>
>> Personally I think nothing short of a permanent driving ban will make
>> inroads in these drivers.
>>
>
>Nothing like depriving the working classes of their livelihoods to keep
>them in their place eh?
>
Nothing like playing the Anglo-Norman class game to evade
responsibility for criminality ?

On 28/01/2022 16:50, Tweed wrote:
> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/01/2022 16:13, mick wrote:
>>> I am wondering drivers brains don't register the lower orange and black
>>> stripes.  Perhaps a colour change to the flourecent yellow and black
>>> would make it stand out better.
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60170620
>>>
>> Personally I think nothing short of a permanent driving ban will make
>> inroads in these drivers.
>>
>
> Nothing like depriving the working classes of their livelihoods to keep
> them in their place eh?
>
My view is that if they cannot be trusted to drive in a safe manner they
should not be allowed to drive.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 17:39:40 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
<anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 28/01/2022 16:29, GB wrote:
>>> 1. The most likely is that the approach road is downhill. So it is
>>> difficult to judge the bridge height. The driver has to compensate for
>>> slope of the road, and just gets it wrong.
>>
>> It is quite possible. There is an example in Leeming's classic book,
>> where there were regularly crashes where one road crossed another. He
>> got the police to assist by watching for cars that did not stop at the
>> crossroads and pulling them over to ask why. They very soon found that
>> with the layout, you did not see the crossroads until too late.
>>
>> The local paper found out and made a fuss about why the police were not
>> prosecuting people but the roads authority were able to make some minor
>> (and cheap) alterations which virtually elimated accidents there.
>>
>>
>
>See also: <https://youtu.be/SYeeTvitvFU> "Tom Scott: Why this British cross
>roads was so dangerous"
>
Not bad. At least 7 offenders in just over 4 minutes. I wouldn't put
as much blame on the layout as he does. One stop sign I pass regularly
at a T-junction in NW London (after stopping) has an offending rate of
up to ~80% IME.

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:50:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On 28/01/2022 16:13, mick wrote:
>>>> I am wondering drivers brains don't register the lower orange and black
>>>> stripes.  Perhaps a colour change to the flourecent yellow and black
>>>> would make it stand out better.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60170620
>>>>
>>> Personally I think nothing short of a permanent driving ban will make
>>> inroads in these drivers.
>>>
>>
>> Nothing like depriving the working classes of their livelihoods to keep
>> them in their place eh?
>>
> Nothing like playing the Anglo-Norman class game to evade
> responsibility for criminality ?
>

In my book genuine criminality involves some sort of malicious intent,
though I admit the law often sees otherwise. I doubt the average bridge
basher sets off with the intent of hitting a bridge.

GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
> On 28/01/2022 16:13, mick wrote:
>> I am wondering drivers brains don't register the lower orange and black
>> stripes.  Perhaps a colour change to the flourecent yellow and black
>> would make it stand out better.
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60170620
>>
>
>
> Two possible explanations:
>
> 1. The most likely is that the approach road is downhill. So it is
> difficult to judge the bridge height. The driver has to compensate for
> slope of the road, and just gets it wrong.

The driver shouldn’t be judging the bridge height, s/he should be obeying
the height restriction road signs.

--
Jeremy Double

mick <nospam@junk.mail> wrote:
> I am wondering drivers brains don't register the lower orange and black
> stripes. Perhaps a colour change to the flourecent yellow and black
> would make it stand out better.
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60170620
>

Given how often we hear about this bridge (OK, yes, I know there’s a reason
for that) I’m amazed it’s only the fourth most bashed bridge in the
country.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 18:12:40 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:50:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 28/01/2022 16:13, mick wrote:
>>>>> I am wondering drivers brains don't register the lower orange and black
>>>>> stripes.  Perhaps a colour change to the flourecent yellow and black
>>>>> would make it stand out better.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60170620
>>>>>
>>>> Personally I think nothing short of a permanent driving ban will make
>>>> inroads in these drivers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing like depriving the working classes of their livelihoods to keep
>>> them in their place eh?
>>>
>> Nothing like playing the Anglo-Norman class game to evade
>> responsibility for criminality ?
>>
>
>In my book genuine criminality involves some sort of malicious intent,
>though I admit the law often sees otherwise. I doubt the average bridge
>basher sets off with the intent of hitting a bridge.
>
Gross negligence can be an element in various criminal offences (e.g.
manslaughter, dangerous driving) with or without intent.

In message <die8vg16bpp9el8tns1d7sle7mir4v3877@4ax.com>, at 18:49:12 on
Fri, 28 Jan 2022, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:29:41 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On 28/01/2022 16:13, mick wrote:
>>> I am wondering drivers brains don't register the lower orange and black
>>> stripes.  Perhaps a colour change to the flourecent yellow and black
>>> would make it stand out better.
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60170620
>>
>>Two possible explanations:
>>
>>1. The most likely is that the approach road is downhill. So it is
>>difficult to judge the bridge height. The driver has to compensate for
>>slope of the road, and just gets it wrong.
>>
>>2. The approach road is quite narrow, so that's a distraction for the
>>driver, as he's being careful not to mount the kerb.
>
>Another is that the van may well have been driven by someone unfamiliar
>with it and wasn't sufficiently aware of its height. A lot of vans like
>that are hire vans and are driven by people who aren't normally used to
>driving high vehicles.

That one is too old (11yrs), and unmarked, to plausibly be a hire
vehicle. In any event all the *local* hire companies make it clear to
customers they shouldn't attempt the underpass. Although that doesn't
always work:

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/10th-October-2021b.jpg

I find it rather unfortunate that the signage on the back says "8 foot",
when (a) anyway that's describing a different van in their fleet and (b)
the measurement in question is the length of the interior load-carrying
floor.

Seeing as that's (like yesterday's, and almost all such bashes) a
"wedgie", I'd estimate the height at the bridge's (measured rather than
displayed) 2.85m plus no more than 5cm, meaning it's just below the
magic 3m. But signage in the cab would be a definite self-preservation
measure by the operators
--
Roland Perry

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 18:12:40 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:50:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 28/01/2022 16:13, mick wrote:
>>>>>> I am wondering drivers brains don't register the lower orange and black
>>>>>> stripes.  Perhaps a colour change to the flourecent yellow and black
>>>>>> would make it stand out better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60170620
>>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I think nothing short of a permanent driving ban will make
>>>>> inroads in these drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nothing like depriving the working classes of their livelihoods to keep
>>>> them in their place eh?
>>>>
>>> Nothing like playing the Anglo-Norman class game to evade
>>> responsibility for criminality ?
>>>
>>
>> In my book genuine criminality involves some sort of malicious intent,
>> though I admit the law often sees otherwise. I doubt the average bridge
>> basher sets off with the intent of hitting a bridge.
>>
> Gross negligence can be an element in various criminal offences (e.g.
> manslaughter, dangerous driving) with or without intent.
>

Yes, legally that’s true. But in my personal classification of moral
behaviour there’s a difference between intending to do something bad
(criminal) and being totally stupid (gross negligence). If you intend to
neglect to do something, such as not bothering to maintain dangerous
equipment or not bothering to fit a machine guard when you know you should,
well that’s intended and criminal. Likewise, dangerous driving is
intentional, whereas careless driving probably isn’t, but both are
classified as criminal offences.

Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 22:25:14 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> mick <nospam@junk.mail> wrote:
>>> I am wondering drivers brains don't register the lower orange and black
>>> stripes. Perhaps a colour change to the flourecent yellow and black
>>> would make it stand out better.
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60170620
>>>
>>
>> Given how often we hear about this bridge (OK, yes, I know there’s a reason
>> for that) I’m amazed it’s only the fourth most bashed bridge in the
>> country.
>
> Possibly because it's one which, unlike bridges 1 to 3, has significant
> anti-bash measures in place. And, also, the number of bashes is, for all
> the bridges in the top ten, still relatively low, and mere random
> variation in different years can significantly affect the ranking. The
> most-bashed bridge in 2021 only had four more bashes than this one.

Thank you. Four out of how many?

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <p5s8vg9euug58ah7j7a84q9l23lgnmic0i@4ax.com>, at 22:45:05 on
Fri, 28 Jan 2022, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 22:25:14 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
><ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>mick <nospam@junk.mail> wrote:
>>> I am wondering drivers brains don't register the lower orange and black
>>> stripes. Perhaps a colour change to the flourecent yellow and black
>>> would make it stand out better.

Actually, the orange colour is former signage, and was changed to yellow
a while back, and then the surface area doubled.

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/stuntney-sign-size.jpg

I presume some of the later yellow striping has been knocked off quite
recently, exposing the ancient orange.

Given that the majority of the bashes are the exact same outline of van
(like yesterday) perhaps an advertising hoarding with a photo, and words
like "This doesn't fit"?

Or as I keep suggesting, lower the road surface an inch, so they *do*
fit.

>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60170620
>>
>>Given how often we hear about this bridge (OK, yes, I know there’s a reason
>>for that) I’m amazed it’s only the fourth most bashed bridge in the
>>country.
>
>Possibly because it's one which, unlike bridges 1 to 3, has significant
>anti-bash measures in place.

The most significant anti-bash measure is the new bypass (which was to
take the adjacent level crossing out of service). Together with
impressive new signage:

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/signage-March-2019.jpg
http://www.perry.co.uk/images/signage-March-2019b.jpg

And this on the main road: <http://www.perry.co.uk/images/A142-signage.j
pg>

>And, also, the number of bashes is, for all the bridges in the top ten,
>still relatively low, and mere random variation in different years can
>significantly affect the ranking.

I think every bash at Ely gets in the local Facebook group, which is
then picked up by the local papers.

Same when the A10,'s closed by an RTA, which is vastly more frequent.

And it's very busy, with an inconvenient detour, so lots of people are
interested when the road is closed for typically an hour.

Trains aren't affected at all, for example there one went over that
goods loop section of the bridge (which is bashed far more often than
the next span which carries the passenger trains) just as I was getting
back into my car. I was parked on the old approach road to the level
crossing.

>The most-bashed bridge in 2021 only had four more bashes than this one.

The railway bridges struck the most times in 2020/21:

1. Coddenham Road bridge, Needham Market, Suffolk (19 strikes)

2.5m, and feels very low even in a car. Been under it myself.

2. St John's Street bridge, Lichfield, Staffordshire (18 strikes) 4.2m
3. Harlaxton Road, Grantham, Lincolnshire (16 strikes) 4.5m
4. Stuntney Road bridge, Ely, Cambridgeshire (15 strikes) 2.7m
5. Bromford Road bridge, Dudley, West Midlands (13 strikes) 4.4m
6. Watling Street bridge, Hinckley, Leicestershire (11 strikes) 4.6m
7. Warminster Road bridge, Wilton, Wiltshire (11 strikes) 4.2m
8. Ipswich Road bridge, Manningtree, Essex (10 strikes) 4.5m
9. Thames Street bridge, Staines-upon-Thames, Surrey (10 strikes) 2.8m
10. Lower Downs Road, Wimbledon, London (10 strikes) 7'9" [2.3m]

Manningtree almost the same level crossing/underpass configuration as
Ely, the others all just bridges. But they are in two distinct clusters:

2.3 2.5 2.7 2.8 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.6

the former big enough for a Range Rover, but not a van like a Tesco
Delivery one (the local Tesco had specially lowered ones) versus more
than 4m which have to be victims of HGVs, whose drivers must know their
height unless carrying an unusual load.

Here's a van with an unusual load (and you can almost forgive them for
failing to measure it, or forgetting it was there - although I expect
the smaller van's owner wasn't very forgiving).

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/16th-October-2019.jpg

And another level crossing underpass nearby that gets hit a lot
<http://www.perry.co.uk/images/Stonea-15-Oct-2019.jpg>

That van nearly fitted, and the bridge is signed 2.0m and has a bar
across it as part of the bridge structure, but that doesn't help much,
especially when the bash breaks it:

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/Stonea-21-Oct-2019.jpg

It had 13 strikes the year before, but was then closed for a year while
they repaired it.
--
Roland Perry

On 29/01/2022 08:49, Tweed wrote:
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 18:12:40 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:50:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/01/2022 16:13, mick wrote:
>>>>>>> I am wondering drivers brains don't register the lower orange and black
>>>>>>> stripes.  Perhaps a colour change to the flourecent yellow and black
>>>>>>> would make it stand out better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60170620
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I think nothing short of a permanent driving ban will make
>>>>>> inroads in these drivers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing like depriving the working classes of their livelihoods to keep
>>>>> them in their place eh?
>>>>>
>>>> Nothing like playing the Anglo-Norman class game to evade
>>>> responsibility for criminality ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> In my book genuine criminality involves some sort of malicious intent,
>>> though I admit the law often sees otherwise. I doubt the average bridge
>>> basher sets off with the intent of hitting a bridge.
>>>
>> Gross negligence can be an element in various criminal offences (e.g.
>> manslaughter, dangerous driving) with or without intent.
>>
>
> Yes, legally that’s true. But in my personal classification of moral
> behaviour there’s a difference between intending to do something bad
> (criminal) and being totally stupid (gross negligence). If you intend to
> neglect to do something, such as not bothering to maintain dangerous
> equipment or not bothering to fit a machine guard when you know you should,
> well that’s intended and criminal. Likewise, dangerous driving is
> intentional, whereas careless driving probably isn’t, but both are
> classified as criminal offences.
>
I would suggest that failure to compare the bridge height sign with that
written in the vehicle is negligence.

In message <st35cm$aj2$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:37:10 on Sat, 29 Jan
2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>On 29/01/2022 08:49, Tweed wrote:
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 18:12:40 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:50:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 28/01/2022 16:13, mick wrote:
>>>>>>>> I am wondering drivers brains don't register the lower orange and black
>>>>>>>> stripes.  Perhaps a colour change to the flourecent yellow and black
>>>>>>>> would make it stand out better.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60170620
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally I think nothing short of a permanent driving ban will make
>>>>>>> inroads in these drivers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing like depriving the working classes of their livelihoods to keep
>>>>>> them in their place eh?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing like playing the Anglo-Norman class game to evade
>>>>> responsibility for criminality ?
>>>>
>>>> In my book genuine criminality involves some sort of malicious intent,
>>>> though I admit the law often sees otherwise. I doubt the average bridge
>>>> basher sets off with the intent of hitting a bridge.
>>>>
>>> Gross negligence can be an element in various criminal offences (e.g.
>>> manslaughter, dangerous driving) with or without intent.
>>>
>> Yes, legally that’s true. But in my personal classification of moral
>> behaviour there’s a difference between intending to do something bad
>> (criminal) and being totally stupid (gross negligence). If you intend to
>> neglect to do something, such as not bothering to maintain dangerous
>> equipment or not bothering to fit a machine guard when you know you should,
>> well that’s intended and criminal. Likewise, dangerous driving is
>> intentional, whereas careless driving probably isn’t, but both are
>> classified as criminal offences.
>>
>I would suggest that failure to compare the bridge height sign with
>that written in the vehicle is negligence.

It might be slightly more than that, because all the bridges in the
top-ten have I think red-circle prohibition signs, not red-triangle
advisory signs. So in addition to any potential offence for actually
bashing the bridge, there's a cast-iron offence of failing to comply
with restriction sign.

Would anyone suggest that speeding is merely "negligence" if the person
was not in the habit of checking their speedo?
--
Roland Perry

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 29/01/2022 08:49, Tweed wrote:
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 18:12:40 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:50:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 28/01/2022 16:13, mick wrote:
>>>>>>>> I am wondering drivers brains don't register the lower orange and black
>>>>>>>> stripes.  Perhaps a colour change to the flourecent yellow and black
>>>>>>>> would make it stand out better.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60170620
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally I think nothing short of a permanent driving ban will make
>>>>>>> inroads in these drivers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing like depriving the working classes of their livelihoods to keep
>>>>>> them in their place eh?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing like playing the Anglo-Norman class game to evade
>>>>> responsibility for criminality ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In my book genuine criminality involves some sort of malicious intent,
>>>> though I admit the law often sees otherwise. I doubt the average bridge
>>>> basher sets off with the intent of hitting a bridge.
>>>>
>>> Gross negligence can be an element in various criminal offences (e.g.
>>> manslaughter, dangerous driving) with or without intent.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, legally that’s true. But in my personal classification of moral
>> behaviour there’s a difference between intending to do something bad
>> (criminal) and being totally stupid (gross negligence). If you intend to
>> neglect to do something, such as not bothering to maintain dangerous
>> equipment or not bothering to fit a machine guard when you know you should,
>> well that’s intended and criminal. Likewise, dangerous driving is
>> intentional, whereas careless driving probably isn’t, but both are
>> classified as criminal offences.
>>
> I would suggest that failure to compare the bridge height sign with that
> written in the vehicle is negligence.
>

Of course it is negligent, but I very much doubt it’s intentional, which is
the point I’m trying to make. I just don’t believe the average bridge
basher sets out with the intention of not reading the signs. So the cry of
let’s deprive them of their living isn’t really going to stop the majority
of bashes and is just going to spread the misery.

In message <st37ml$ss9$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:16:37 on Sat, 29 Jan
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
><martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 29/01/2022 08:49, Tweed wrote:
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 18:12:40 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:50:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>>>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 28/01/2022 16:13, mick wrote:

>>>>>>>>> I am wondering drivers brains don't register the lower orange
>>>>>>>>>and black stripes.  Perhaps a colour change to the flourecent
>>>>>>>>> would make it stand out better.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60170620
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personally I think nothing short of a permanent driving ban will make
>>>>>>>> inroads in these drivers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing like depriving the working classes of their livelihoods to keep
>>>>>>> them in their place eh?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing like playing the Anglo-Norman class game to evade
>>>>>> responsibility for criminality ?
>>>>>
>>>>> In my book genuine criminality involves some sort of malicious intent,
>>>>> though I admit the law often sees otherwise. I doubt the average bridge
>>>>> basher sets off with the intent of hitting a bridge.
>>>>>
>>>> Gross negligence can be an element in various criminal offences (e.g.
>>>> manslaughter, dangerous driving) with or without intent.
>>>
>>> Yes, legally that’s true. But in my personal classification of moral
>>> behaviour there’s a difference between intending to do something bad
>>> (criminal) and being totally stupid (gross negligence). If you intend to
>>> neglect to do something, such as not bothering to maintain dangerous
>>> equipment or not bothering to fit a machine guard when you know you should,
>>> well that’s intended and criminal. Likewise, dangerous driving is
>>> intentional, whereas careless driving probably isn’t, but both are
>>> classified as criminal offences.
>>>
>> I would suggest that failure to compare the bridge height sign with that
>> written in the vehicle is negligence.
>>
>
>Of course it is negligent, but I very much doubt it’s intentional, which is
>the point I’m trying to make. I just don’t believe the average bridge
>basher sets out with the intention of not reading the signs.

I suspect they do read the signs, but decide they don't apply to *them*,
not even the flashing ones set off by breaking a light-beam, which is a
similar idea to those ever-popular speed signs which flash at you if you
exceed the limit. And not just with messages like "Slow Down".

There's one (on the approach to the overbridge of the loop at Queen
Adelaide) which flashes a red circle too. Streetview too out of date to
show it.

>So the cry of let’s deprive them of their living isn’t really going
>to stop the majority of bashes and is just going to spread the misery.

The idea (although I agree it's a bit pissing in the wind-ish) is that
if those drivers are so incompetent they fail to appreciate the
implication of height restriction signage, and the looming Zebra
Stripes, what other negligent driving are they also capable of?
--
Roland Perry

On 28/01/2022 18:54, Jeremy Double wrote:
> GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>> On 28/01/2022 16:13, mick wrote:
>>> I am wondering drivers brains don't register the lower orange and black
>>> stripes.  Perhaps a colour change to the flourecent yellow and black
>>> would make it stand out better.
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60170620
>>>
>>
>>
>> Two possible explanations:
>>
>> 1. The most likely is that the approach road is downhill. So it is
>> difficult to judge the bridge height. The driver has to compensate for
>> slope of the road, and just gets it wrong.
>
> The driver shouldn’t be judging the bridge height, s/he should be obeying
> the height restriction road signs.
>

Indeed. But, I assume that nobody does this intentionally, so why do you
think it keeps happening?