Car Transporter Fail

tl45 · 20 Mar 2015 at 01:02

Couple of new Focus owners may be waiting slightly longer than expected for their cars....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...as-lorry-becomes-wedged-under-low-bridge.html

nutcase · 20 Mar 2015 at 06:46

And modern cars are supposed to be safer?!

snips86x · 20 Mar 2015 at 07:06

Oh dear! You'd think the driver would know the height of his truck and would take note of the bridge. Wonder how this panned out for him! lol

Scania · 20 Mar 2015 at 07:27

The driver should have known his height but, from the picture, there is no low bridge warning sign which theoretically tells the driver the bridge is 16'3" or greater in clearance, the transporter would be well within this limit.
That this sign is missing will mean somebody from the local council will be getting his nuts chewed, not the driver.
Low bridges have height clearance signs posted for this very reason!

AtreuS · 20 Mar 2015 at 15:57

T-cut....

( sorry had to be done )

Etheco · 20 Mar 2015 at 16:02

Ah a classic

ADT · 20 Mar 2015 at 16:11

Now people don't have to worry about taking the cars back to the dealer when they break down, ford has done it for them

Dis86 · 20 Mar 2015 at 16:41

Scania said:
The driver should have known his height but, from the picture, there is no low bridge warning sign which theoretically tells the driver the bridge is 16'3" or greater in clearance, the transporter would be well within this limit.
That this sign is missing will mean somebody from the local council will be getting his nuts chewed, not the driver.
Low bridges have height clearance signs posted for this very reason!

You're joking right? Nobody in local council is held accountable for anything!

nutcase · 20 Mar 2015 at 20:47

The sign is probably embedded in the first car.

delta0 · 20 Mar 2015 at 20:50

Anyone want a black convertible Focus?

ElliorR · 20 Mar 2015 at 21:02

If the driver wasn't wearing his glasses maybe he was out of Focus.

God that's terrible. Sorry.

xs2man · 20 Mar 2015 at 21:04

No worse than a stone chip or two. Should buff out...

Scania · 20 Mar 2015 at 21:22

Dis86 said:
You're joking right? Nobody in local council is held accountable for anything!

Ok, maybe not council, highways agency? Whoever. The point is bridges under 16'3" clearance need - by law - signage to prevent this from happening.

Bridge height signs are there for a good reason.

Fr0dders · 20 Mar 2015 at 23:54

according to the article the bridge is 14'5" so well under that.

You'd never guess from that picture it was a low bridge and didn't meet standard clearance regs.

Jono8 · 21 Mar 2015 at 08:56

That must be an amusing call for the dealer to make to a customer.

Dealer: "Your order has been delayed"

Buyer: "Why?"

Dealer: "Because your brand new car no longer has a roof..."

Berger · 21 Mar 2015 at 09:22

Scania said:
Ok, maybe not council, highways agency? Whoever. The point is bridges under 16'3" clearance need - by law - signage to prevent this from happening.

Bridge height signs are there for a good reason.

I would imagine as they do for potholes Etc, they have a schedule to go by to check the signage is correct, so if it was at the last check then all will be fine.

Someone could have stolen it the previous night, nothing the council or highways could do about it.

Gammawolf · 21 Mar 2015 at 12:02

Scania said:
The driver should have known his height but, from the picture, there is no low bridge warning sign which theoretically tells the driver the bridge is 16'3" or greater in clearance, the transporter would be well within this limit.
That this sign is missing will mean somebody from the local council will be getting his nuts chewed, not the driver.
Low bridges have height clearance signs posted for this very reason!

Who knows, on street view there are signs in both directions 30m from the bridge. Signs could not be there any more, area looks prone to vegetation overgrowing so could be covered up.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.2...ata=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sCdtbke_WmYNmmSJ6qz1Dmg!2e0

Scania · 21 Mar 2015 at 14:04

Gammawolf said:
Who knows, on street view there are signs in both directions 30m from the bridge. Signs could not be there any more, area looks prone to vegetation overgrowing so could be covered up.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.2...ata=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sCdtbke_WmYNmmSJ6qz1Dmg!2e0

I can't see those signs being obscured at this time of year tbh, it's looking increasingly like a driver derp to me, although the bridge itself should be signed regardless.

I wonder if he was foreign?

We've had a few bridge strikes at my employers recently, the foreign (agency) driver(s) concerned claimed they couldn't read a numerical height sign!

tl45 · 21 Mar 2015 at 21:59

Scania said:
I can't see those signs being obscured at this time of year tbh, it's looking increasingly like a driver derp to me, although the bridge itself should be signed regardless.

I wonder if he was foreign?

We've had a few bridge strikes at my employers recently, the foreign (agency) driver(s) concerned claimed they couldn't read a numerical height sign!

One of the reports I read said the driver was from Merseyside, that sounds feasible as Ford have a large dispatch compound at Speke so there'll be transport operations drivers based there.