Jump to content

Sympathy for the devil?


stimpy

Recommended Posts

Could just bring back the Tolls, (manned booths for HGV's) at least there's a permanent check point there to turn back high sided vehicles when conditions are unsuitable. Too much queue hassle for motorists and the cost of building a return slip road perhaps? Did the FRB have this problem before the tolls were abolished just out of interest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply
52 minutes ago, NorthernJambo said:


So do we have barriers at every red light, only sell Velcro shoes so folk don't trip on their laces etc. etc. Like I say, I do appreciate your point but as someone above said, once we start implementing systems as per the lowest common denominator we're fucked.

It's just practical for the FRB though. Even if something like this only happens once every decade, fixing some HSV barriers to kick in above a certain cross wind speed would be a cheap option to save the huge potential cost of the bridge being closed for a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, RedRob72 said:

Could just bring back the Tolls, (manned booths for HGV's) at least there's a permanent check point there to turn back high sided vehicles when conditions are unsuitable. Too much queue hassle for motorists and the cost of building a return slip road perhaps? Did the FRB have this problem before the tolls were abolished just out of interest?

The toll was only one way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rugster said:

The toll was only one way.

Only from about late 90s or so. 30p and then 40p each way when I was younger. With all the tolls on the south side it wouldn't have stopped this happening. Took forever to firstly build and then dismantle the northbound only tollbooths. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The straightforward answer (after dealing with this miscreant) is surely to enforce the prohibition on high sided vehicles by imposing fines every time it's contravened. Plenty of cameras on the bridge already, including the automatic number plate recognition ones for the average speed enforcement. Fine the operator a couple of grand every time some HGV fud drives across in high winds and immediately remove the temptation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just practical for the FRB though. Even if something like this only happens once every decade, fixing some HSV barriers to kick in above a certain cross wind speed would be a cheap option to save the huge potential cost of the bridge being closed for a day.

How much does the bridge being shut take out of taxpayers money? The barriers would have to come out taxpayers money which seems unfair. I've no idea how this would work and can see the theory behind it, but if it can be cheap and effective surely they'd consider it for the bridge which as far as I know they haven't?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said:

The straightforward answer (after dealing with this miscreant) is surely to enforce the prohibition on high sided vehicles by imposing fines every time it's contravened. Plenty of cameras on the bridge already, including the automatic number plate recognition ones for the average speed enforcement. Fine the operator a couple of grand every time some HGV fud drives across in high winds and immediately remove the temptation.

It still wouldn't physically prevent this from happening though. For example a driver who doesn't speak/read English and following their satnav could be blissfully unaware of the significance of the "Bridge Closed to High Sided Vehicles" signs. Folk following their satnav drive their HGVs down farm tracks, people drive into the sea - there's really nothing that can surprise you about how stupid folk can be. Every day in Edinburgh people drive down bus and tram only routes blissfully ignorant of what they are doing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, throbber said:

Can they not just build some sort of wind barrier that can protect all bridges from high winds? Like a massive tarpaulin sort of idea?

I think the new bridge has some sort of wind barriers. No idea what they look like or what they are but it was part of the general mission statement about the new crossing that it would have some state of the art wind deflection stuff to stop closures. 

Eta...

Pretty vague.. Current bridge stays open to cars in up to 80mph winds. New bridge wind deflectors can cope with wind up to 70mph. be interesting to see how it copes when it gets really windy.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/queensferry-crossing-bridge-to-beat-forth-weather-1-3303288 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can they not just build some sort of wind barrier that can protect all bridges from high winds? Like a massive tarpaulin sort of idea?

The Tarpaulin Curtains on high sided vehicles seem to be part of the problem, in the wind resistance they create and put even further pressure on the vehicle particularly if carrying a light load in high winds.
Imagine the whole bridge tipping over into the drink!![emoji47], plus the covers might then be swept out into the North Sea, with very little chance of recovery? I think the potential cost/loss could be prohibitive here!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Shandon Par said:

It still wouldn't physically prevent this from happening though. For example a driver who doesn't speak/read English and following their satnav could be blissfully unaware of the significance of the "Bridge Closed to High Sided Vehicles" signs. Folk following their satnav drive their HGVs down farm tracks, people drive into the sea - there's really nothing that can surprise you about how stupid folk can be. Every day in Edinburgh people drive down bus and tram only routes blissfully ignorant of what they are doing. 

Perhaps. I suspect you're talking about a vanishingly small number of HGV drivers crossing the bridge who genuinely don't have sufficient grasp of the language to recognise that the bridge is meant to be closed to them. For every guy whose van gets blown over there's probably hundreds who chance their arm and get away with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do we have barriers at every red light, only sell Velcro shoes so folk don't trip on their laces etc. etc. Like I say, I do appreciate your point but as someone above said, once we start implementing systems as per the lowest common denominator we're fucked.

I appreciate your point as well but all I'm suggesting is what I see as a potential solution. Yes it's all a bit 'nanny state' but IMO it's only a matter of time before another eejit chances their luck crossing the bridge, potentially endangering lives and causing unnecessary, prolonged tailbacks for miles around.

The straightforward answer (after dealing with this miscreant) is surely to enforce the prohibition on high sided vehicles by imposing fines every time it's contravened. Plenty of cameras on the bridge already, including the automatic number plate recognition ones for the average speed enforcement. Fine the operator a couple of grand every time some HGV fud drives across in high winds and immediately remove the temptation.

^^^Solution found.

Good suggestion. Even if they're lucky enough to make it across safely, a ban and huge fine for the driver and where applicable, a huge fine for the company as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NorthernJambo said:


How much does the bridge being shut take out of taxpayers money? The barriers would have to come out taxpayers money which seems unfair. I've no idea how this would work and can see the theory behind it, but if it can be cheap and effective surely they'd consider it for the bridge which as far as I know they haven't?

I'd be willing to bet that sticking up a couple of barriers would cost the taxpayer a hell of a lot less than the direct costs of closing the bridge, clearing it up and repairing it. That's not even counting the indirect cost to 'taxpayers' through cost to the wider economy.

That's completely aside from the danger to lives and property of lorries crossing in high winds.

They haven't done it so far, isn't really a good argument against it. Good ideas tend not to be implemented until they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...