Grand Canal Dock crash?

Setun

Dunno if this has been posted elsewhere, but does anyone know what the probem was at Grand Canal dock? My gf was on her way to get on a southbound train and aparrently there as a crash at grand canal and all southbound trains are now cancelled. Anybody know what happened?

John R

I believe it was a bridge strike.

parsi

John R wrote:

I believe it was a bridge strike.

Bloody unions

(Think about it....)

godtabh

John R wrote:

I believe it was a bridge strike.

I still cant believe in this day and age that bridge strikes still happen.

I did my final year project on these.

It came down to two things.
1) Truck drivers are idiots
2) County councils are idiots when the redo surfaces and dont tell any one

Pineapple stu

parsi wrote:

Bloody unions

(Think about it....)

I heard women on train give out about that.:D

Ham'nd'egger

parsi wrote:

Bloody unions

(Think about it....)

I suppose it was about "over" time:D

corktina

oh dear......:mad:

Chris_533976

Hamndegger wrote:

I suppose it was about "over" time:D

I wonder if the IMPACT trade union are involved

eth0_

kearnsr wrote:

I still cant believe in this day and age that bridge strikes still happen.

I did my final year project on these.

It came down to two things.
1) Truck drivers are idiots
2) County councils are idiots when the redo surfaces and dont tell any one

What happens in these situations? I'd like to think the truck company get fined a hefty sum.
Seriously, how thick do you have to be to not gauge that your vehicle won't fit under a bridge?!

godtabh

eth0_ wrote:

What happens in these situations? I'd like to think the truck company get fined a hefty sum.
Seriously, how thick do you have to be to not gauge that your vehicle won't fit under a bridge?!

They are meant to be sued for damages and loss of revenue but I dont think I've hard of a case of it yet.

Also the drivers can be done with dangerous driving

Ham'nd'egger

kearnsr wrote:

They are meant to be sued for damages and loss of revenue but I dont think I've hard of a case of it yet.

Also the drivers can be done with dangerous driving

There is some manner of an offence regarding hitting a bridge introduced in the last year or two.

Prof_V

Hamndegger wrote:

There is some manner of an offence regarding hitting a bridge introduced in the last year or two.

I think this is it:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2005/en/act/pub/0031/sec0138.html#partxvii-sec138

John R

kearnsr wrote:

They are meant to be sued for damages and loss of revenue but I dont think I've hard of a case of it yet.

As it is a RTA the insurers pay out, IE or the other bridge owners I am sure claim for all their losses. There is no reason it would go to court as the insurers wouldn't be interested in fighting a loser.

kearnsr wrote:

Also the drivers can be done with dangerous driving

There does seem to be a reticence of the Garda/DPP to prosecute these cases except where there are injuries or fatalities when it suddenly becomes number 1 priority to send them down.

Perhaps if they went after the damage only cases it would drive the message home and prevent the more serious incidents in the first place.

seamus

John R wrote:

There does seem to be a reticence of the Garda/DPP to prosecute these cases except where there are injuries or fatalities when it suddenly becomes number 1 priority to send them down.

Perhaps if they went after the damage only cases it would drive the message home and prevent the more serious incidents in the first place.

There may be some unwillingness about it - as kearnsr points out, the councils are less than vigilant about their signage.
I'd say there are a number of height indication signs that are way off out there - due to resurfacing, road sinking, etc.

I would like to see a minimum clearance being applied across the board. If a road is being worked on in any way (resurfacing, realigning, etc), then the council should have to dig it out to conform with this minimum clearance.

godtabh

seamus wrote:

I would like to see a minimum clearance being applied across the board. If a road is being worked on in any way (resurfacing, realigning, etc), then the council should have to dig it out to conform with this minimum clearance.

To be fair with the very old bridge stock IR have it would be difficult to get a min bridge level put in place.

It comes down to driver error time after time. IR look after signage on their bridges with all heights surveyed. If you still manage to hit the bridge you shouldnt be allowed to driver for a living.

Many bridges have infrared dectors and still the bridges get hit