The same thing virtually applies to car drivers as well, a pissy 300-odd dollar fine (which is pocket change to anyone with the bare minimum wage in Australia) and back on your way like nothing happened.

I've never known of an over height car hitting a low clearance bridge,

Is there such a thing

Mike.

I have witnessed a high 4wd with racks on the roof tear down piping off the roof in a docklands car park

What can we expect?

The lettering on the bridge is only half a metre high. Red on a white background.

It’s bound to confuse.

{sarcasm off}

Time for massive increases in penalty for this type of infraction.

There was a big hit on the Victoria Rd bridge at Harcourt last week which knocked the protection beam off its perch and put a huge divot in the bitumen.

Apparently a truck carrying large hay bales (just a short haul run apparently).

Hooray - Montague Street Bridge strikes again! Good to hear that thing is still taking out truck drivers that can't read.

Loss of license for a period could help reduce these incidents.

No. . . loss of heavy licence for life. Anyone this dumb has no right to be out there menacing life and property.

This does need to be a real option considering the amount of times this happens.  The company must also take some responsibility for driver training.  The other comment above worth considering is why do we need these larger trucks in the CBD.  London has banned them.  You don't see them in Sydney.

What training is involved? Just got to know the exact height of your vehicle and the ability to read signs.

They would be using navigator systems and blindly follow them.

There was a big hit on the Victoria Rd bridge at Harcourt last week which knocked the protection beam off its perch and put a huge divot in the bitumen.

Apparently a truck carrying large hay bales (just a short haul run apparently).

Wow, no wonder she was closed for a while, i didn't realise it was that bad!

So with Hay being a somewhat pliable load I wonder if the truck hit the side that we are looking at in the shot and the beam bounced off or whether it hit from the other side, the hay slid under the first beam, rubbed along under the bridge slightly compressed and then sprung up when the load started to come out from under the bridge and knocked the second beam forwards?

Either way, fine effort, well done that fellow!

Hooray - Montague Street Bridge strikes again! Good to hear that thing is still taking out truck drivers that can't read.

..........what are you implying don, can some of em read...

BigShunter.

This thread is an object lesson in why the road toll stubornly refuses to go down.

There is no independent, public, investigation of road accidents.

We have no idea why heavy vehicle operators collide with these bridges. Is it because they are using (cheaper) GPS intended for light vehicle use? Is it because there is a hole in heavy vehicle training? Is it because heavy vehicle operators are overworked? Is it because the operators are inexperienced and poorly trained? Are the operators cowboys who are simply reckless?

How can the problem of bridge collisions be addressed without hard investigative data on the actual causes?

And if it is not solved, sooner or later there will be a death.

The lesson from other transport modes is quite clear: independent public investigations improve safety.

This thread is an object lesson in why the road toll stubornly refuses to go down.

There is no independent, public, investigation of road accidents.

We have no idea why heavy vehicle operators collide with these bridges. Is it because they are using (cheaper) GPS intended for light vehicle use? Is it because there is a hole in heavy vehicle training? Is it because heavy vehicle operators are overworked? Is it because the operators are inexperienced and poorly trained? Are the operators cowboys who are simply reckless?

How can the problem of bridge collisions be addressed without hard investigative data on the actual causes?

And if it is not solved, sooner or later there will be a death.

The lesson from other transport modes is quite clear: independent public investigations improve safety.

I have to differ with you Historian, the road toll in the last 50yrs has come down considerably, and with a multifold increase in the number of vehicles on the road. The reason is not that our driving has improved over that period, people are still behaving largely as they always have, but because of improvements in road design and vehicle design.

Independent public investigations do improve safety (if the recommendations of those investigations get implemented).
It is also true that a greater degree of control is exercised over those other transport modes, a far greater degree than a democratic population will tolerate over their right to drive road vehicles when, where, and however they like, (road rules, highway patrol and traffic signs/signals not withstanding).

So until governments are brave enough to seriously take on the road freight industry, things will not improve; and I don't see any sign of that happening...

I have to differ with you Historian, the road toll in the last 50yrs has come down considerably, and with a multifold increase in the number of vehicles on the road. The reason is not that our driving has improved over that period, people are still behaving largely as they always have, but because of improvements in road design and vehicle design.

Independent public investigations do improve safety (if the recommendations of those investigations get implemented).
It is also true that a greater degree of control is exercised over those other transport modes, a far greater degree than a democratic population will tolerate over their right to drive road vehicles when, where, and however they like, (road rules, highway patrol and traffic signs/signals not withstanding).

So until governments are brave enough to seriously take on the road freight industry, things will not improve; and I don't see any sign of that happening...

Lots of interesting points.

I would agree that over the last 50 years the road toll has come down. (In addition to improved road and vehicle design, don't forget legislative iniatives such as compulsory seatbelt wearing and the changed social attitudes to drink driving.) However, over the last decade the fall has stopped, and recently the road toll has started to climb again. *And no-one knows why*.

Worse, people have random thought bubbles about causes, which lead to inappropriate 'remedies'. As I said, the posts to this thread are a good example - the bridge crashes are due to stupid drivers, for example. Might be true. Might not. No-one knows.

Because you are looking at a mature investigative environment - rail, airline, shipping - I think you are missing the important benefit of investigations.

The most important benefit of independent investigations is to build up a body of evidence about the actual causes of accidents. Once a picture is painted, it become much easier to introduce legislation to address the problems.

It's very clear this is how both the UK railway inspectorate (in the 19th century) and the US ICC worked (in the early 20th century).

One small example. Initially the US ICC didn't have the power to investigate accidents, but they had the power to require railroads to report all accidents (over a certain seriousness). After a while the ICC changed their reporting requirements and required railroad to report on the number of hours the staff in an accident had been on duty. This quickly made apparent that a major problem that staff were working excessive hours with few breaks. Once this was obvious, there was legislative enthusiasm for 'hours of service' laws - introduced over the screams of the railroads and its supporters.

As I said, the posts to this thread are a good example - the bridge crashes are due to stupid drivers, for example. Might be true. Might not. No-one knows.

I have to say that I'd need some very convincing evidence before I contemplated any other reason.  Measure load, see sign, don't go - it doesn't get any simpler.

On the subject of road toll, it's one of my pet beefs that Licences are far too easy to get. Driving must be the only discipline in which the incompetent are allowed to teach the innocent. The instructor's bad habits are learnt by the pupil and so it goes on.
The kid sees and hears dad abusing other road users and blaring the horn and learns that selfishness and impatience are the norm.
Then we see mummy teaching little Jane to drive - in the big SUV at 90 km/h in the extreme right lane of a freeway ( don't laugh; I see it often enough) and little Jane learns to stay as far to the right as possible and go slowly whilst ignoring the signs that say "Keep left unless overtaking." I have actually had a conversation with one such driver who admitted quite candidly that she can't drive in any other lane; that's how she was taught.

In short, the bad habits are passed on from generation to generation. Any official solution is well buried in the Too Hard basket.

On top of this, we are burdened with  this "speed kills" nonsense. It's not speed that kills; it's driver incompetence that kills. Notwithstanding this, the official version is that if you stick to speed limits everything will be OK. To emphasize this, we put speed cameras ( sorry; "Road Safety Cameras") all over the place and ping people for being 5 km/h over the limit. Increased safety nil, angry motorists 1. Worse, many believe that all they have to worry about is the speed limit, to the detriment of everything else they should be aware of.
I exempt the 40 km/h school zone limit from criticism, due entirely to the unpredictability of kids. Enforce limits where they're vital, and ignore them where they're not.

Hoons, alcohol, drugs, and distractions like phones, GPS etc are another kettle of fish altogether.

As Historian has pointed out, we have safer cars, compulsory seat belts et al, but the problem is that these are all based upon the belief that you will crash. You're not taught how to avoid crashing.

Unfortunately, my gloomy conclusion is that it will never get better until there are radical changes in driver education and licensing. I'm not hanging by my thumbs, waiting.

In practice, there seems to be only one road rule - the one that says "if you can get away with it, do it".
The problem with that is that most of the time you CAN get away with it, and that just reinforces the culture.

Of all the cities I've visited, Melbourne stands out as the one best suited to "Where are the cops when you need them?". There's no visibility of policing, just a booze bus now and again.

In practice, there seems to be only one road rule - the one that says "if you can get away with it, do it".
The problem with that is that most of the time you CAN get away with it, and that just reinforces the culture.

The equivalent of, only obey a red light, when a blue one is next to it.

As I said, the posts to this thread are a good example - the bridge crashes are due to stupid drivers, for example. Might be true. Might not. No-one knows.

I have to say that I'd need some very convincing evidence before I contemplated any other reason.  Measure load, see sign, don't go - it doesn't get any simpler.

On the subject of road toll, it's one of my pet beefs that Licences are far too easy to get. Driving must be the only discipline in which the incompetent are allowed to teach the innocent. The instructor's bad habits are learnt by the pupil and so it goes on.
The kid sees and hears dad abusing other road users and blaring the horn and learns that selfishness and impatience are the norm.
Then we see mummy teaching little Jane to drive - in the big SUV at 90 km/h in the extreme right lane of a freeway ( don't laugh; I see it often enough) and little Jane learns to stay as far to the right as possible and go slowly whilst ignoring the signs that say "Keep left unless overtaking." I have actually had a conversation with one such driver who admitted quite candidly that she can't drive in any other lane; that's how she was taught.

In short, the bad habits are passed on from generation to generation. Any official solution is well buried in the Too Hard basket.

On top of this, we are burdened with  this "speed kills" nonsense. It's not speed that kills; it's driver incompetence that kills. Notwithstanding this, the official version is that if you stick to speed limits everything will be OK. To emphasize this, we put speed cameras ( sorry; "Road Safety Cameras") all over the place and ping people for being 5 km/h over the limit. Increased safety nil, angry motorists 1. Worse, many believe that all they have to worry about is the speed limit, to the detriment of everything else they should be aware of.
I exempt the 40 km/h school zone limit from criticism, due entirely to the unpredictability of kids. Enforce limits where they're vital, and ignore them where they're not.

Hoons, alcohol, drugs, and distractions like phones, GPS etc are another kettle of fish altogether.

As Historian has pointed out, we have safer cars, compulsory seat belts et al, but the problem is that these are all based upon the belief that you will crash. You're not taught how to avoid crashing.

Unfortunately, my gloomy conclusion is that it will never get better until there are radical changes in driver education and licensing. I'm not hanging by my thumbs, waiting.

VG, monkey see, monkey do.
Road safety cameras, how does receiving a bluey in the post two weeks after the offence change behaviour, in the present tense? Note, I’ve never had one.
40kph school zones, agree with,I live in one. Driver behaviour is pathetic. U/three or five point turns over double lines common. As is double parking. And peanuts extracting kids from the drivers side , into traffic,,,,,

ON the topic of road safety and the police, I get sick to death of the claim that 'there's no such thing as accidents' and that every single crash can be prevented.

Take this incident last August when two truck drivers lost their lives in tragic circumstances last August in Truro SA during a dust storm - ABC;

The crash came amid a severe weather warning, with conditions along the highway reducing visibility to about a metre, according to police.

The circumstances are still being investigated, but the state's Road Transport Association has rejected suggestions pulling over would have been the safer option, saying it could have put other road users at risk.

However, Police Commissioner Grant Stevens said while the crash was a "tragic collision" and expressed his deepest sympathies for both victims and their families, he said poor decisions were to blame.

"A dust storm does not cause vehicles to crash. It's the decisions of the drivers," Commissioner Stevens said.

"Every collision that occurs on our roads primarily a result of a bad decision by someone using a vehicle.

"In this case, those decisions related to a choice made to continue driving, or driving in a manner which was not consistent with the conditions."

"Airlines don't let pilots take-off when they can't see. If airports are fogged in, or weather conditions prevent safe flying, planes don't take off," Commissioner Stevens said.

"What makes us think we can continue to drive on our roads if visibility is down to zero?

"If zero is the extent that you have visibility, then zero is the speed you should be doing."

The families of the deceased truck drivers criticised the Police Commissioner for that statement blaming the truck drivers for what happened - because as it turns out (from a subsequent investigation) one of the trucks was forced to swerve into the path of the other truck by a motorist who had stopped on the highway (just as Commissioner Stevens said they should have done) but had not pulled fully off the road because of the lack of a shoulder. So in fact the crash was caused by a third party AND the lack of somewhere safe to pull over.

I've driven that road a fair bit to visit friends in the Riverland and its really not a very good road - I'd hazard a guess that the truck drivers may have even been looking for somewhere safe to pull over when the accident happened. For Commissioner Stevens to try and say that they caused the accident by being on the road when there was probably no other safe option at that moment was frankly disgraceful and a kick in the guts to the families of the deceased.

I would agree that over the last 50 years the road toll has come down. (In addition to improved road and vehicle design, don't forget legislative iniatives such as compulsory seatbelt wearing and the changed social attitudes to drink driving.) However, over the last decade the fall has stopped, and recently the road toll has started to climb again. *And no-one knows why*.

They do know why, and it is because of a device which most people carry these days, which was introduced in around 2007 — the smartphone. I number of groups including VicRoads, RACV, Monash Uni Road Accident Research Centre, have pointed to the introduction of the smartphone as a reason for an increase in road trauma, both deaths and serious injury.

I would agree that over the last 50 years the road toll has come down. (In addition to improved road and vehicle design, don't forget legislative iniatives such as compulsory seatbelt wearing and the changed social attitudes to drink driving.) However, over the last decade the fall has stopped, and recently the road toll has started to climb again. *And no-one knows why*.
They do know why, and it is because of a device which most people carry these days, which was introduced in around 2007 — the smartphone. I number of groups including VicRoads, RACV, Monash Uni Road Accident Research Centre, have pointed to the introduction of the smartphone as a reason for an increase in road trauma, both deaths and serious injury.

And how do they know? AFAIK *there is no systematic public investigation of road accidents.* If there is no data, there is no knowledge.

What they have noticed is a corelation, and scientists have been taught for a century or more "corelation does not mean causation".

Otherwise we get the situation where the Victorian police inspector can front the cameras and seriously intone that the reason for the spike in pedestrian fatalities is that the pedestrians walk around with their noses buried in mobile phones. (Which for those of you that immediately say 'that's reasonable' does not explain the spike in elderly pedestrians being killed - not a group noted for walking around with their noses in mobile phones.) With the consequence that people then get excited about introducing laws penalising pedestrians for walking around using a mobile phone.

I say again:
* this thread is a perfect example of people assuming systematic causes of accidents on little or no data
* if you want to reduce accidents - both fatal and non fatal - you need systematic collection of data on the causes. All the causes, not just the obvious. Just like we did in railway and airline accident investigation.

I agree with historian that there have been no proper studies done. It has all been shoot from the lip, including the ludicrous "speed kills". I challenged a cop once that he was merely parroting the party line with this statement. He got quite hot under the collar and told me there was no doubt about it. I asked where the proof was and was told I was a smartarse. That's what we're up against.

Having said that, I am struggling to understand why something as simple as knowing the load height, reading a sign and taking correct action seems to be beyond the wit of man.

Perhaps we need the equivalent of cockpit recorders mandated for ALL vehicles, rather than just big interstate rigs.

Could hook them up to the police system and issue speeding/dangerous driving tickets without the need for either highway patrol or speed (sorry, I meant to type “safety”) cameras.

Come to think of it, if we microchipped individuals we could collect data on pedestrian activity too. And issue automatic jaywalking tickets.

Facial identification cameras already operate in Shanghai to issue red light tickets for pedestrians.

I have to say that I'd need some very convincing evidence before I contemplated any other reason.  Measure load, see sign, don't go - it doesn't get any simpler. ……………………….

The Montague Street bridge also has these, at about 200m on the approach sides:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-27/montague-street-bridge-gets-new-safety-measures/7450628

Facial identification cameras already operate in Shanghai to issue red light tickets for pedestrians.

Geez, don't tell Dan Andrews that - he'll have them everywhere in no time.

I have to say that I'd need some very convincing evidence before I contemplated any other reason.  Measure load, see sign, don't go - it doesn't get any simpler. ……………………….

The Montague Street bridge also has these, at about 200m on the approach sides:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-27/montague-street-bridge-gets-new-safety-measures/7450628

Seriously, how much more can you physically do?

Confirmed my belief in “You can’t fix stupid”
Credit Ron White. Comedian.