[Article] Driver fined €300 over bridge collapse

Victor

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0110/pattersond.html

Driver fined €300 over bridge collapse
Thursday, 10 January 2008 16:46

A 49-year-old man has been convicted of careless driving after he admitted driving a truck-load of almost 250 pigs over a bridge which was built to sustain only a quarter of the truck's weight.

David Patterson from Fivemiletown, Co Tyrone, has been fined €300 after pleading guilty to the charge at Listowel District Court.

Ballinagar Bridge at Lixnaw in Co Kerry collapsed under the weight of the truck and around 50 of the pigs died.

The incident happened on 1 February 2007.

Ballinagar Bridge, a steel structure, was constructed in 1993 and spanned more than 30 metres. It was inspected by engineers and deemed structurally sound before the incident.

However, a 12-tonne weight limit was imposed and this was indicated in signs on approach roads to the bridge.

The bridge has not been replaced.

bushy...

Victor wrote: »

...........However, a 12-tonne weight limit was imposed and this was indicated in signs on approach roads to the bridge..

Bit ridiculous for a new-ish bridge , a fire engine is around or > that , so you burn to death while are going the long way around .

Kinda like the ones we have :
http://www.wiltshirefirebrigade.com/About_Us/Brigade_Appliances/appliance_pages/physical_resources_appliances_sabre.htm

green123

totally ridiculous fine
him or his company should be responsible for the cost of fixing it
a jail sentance would also be nice to see for the ignorant driver

corktina

that wiuld be a bit severe for what might be a genuine oversight...its the "crime" that determines the sentance surely, not the amount of damage done....

seamus

green123 wrote: »

totally ridiculous fine
him or his company should be responsible for the cost of fixing it
a jail sentance would also be nice to see for the ignorant driver

His insurance company will have to pay the state the cost of the bridge.

MarkR

corktina wrote: »

that wiuld be a bit severe for what might be a genuine oversight...its the "crime" that determines the sentance surely, not the amount of damage done....

Ignoring road signage is not an oversight. Those signs are there for a reason. Same as stop signs and notification of a school zone. Imagine that bridge had been passing over another road instead of a river? He should have gotten points on his licence for careless driving. (Is that one now?)

green123

seamus wrote: »

His insurance company will have to pay the state the cost of the bridge.

well thats a good start
now just shoot the driver and im happy

marmajam

corktina wrote: »

that wiuld be a bit severe for what might be a genuine oversight...its the "crime" that determines the sentance surely, not the amount of damage done....

A 'genuine' oversight in a huge wagon might have different consequences to to say forgetting to buy sugar in LIDL..........
The penalty usually takes responsibility, intention, and consequences into account.
I'd give the judge a bit of a bath like the drowned pigs had to 'encourage' him (or her)

paulm17781

marmajam wrote: »

I'd give the judge a bit of a bath like the drowned pigs had to 'encourage' him (or her)

I'm currently sick, have been for a few days. When I read the article yesterday I saw pigs and read pigeons. I was baffled why such a large heavy truck was needed to carry pigeons.

Tipsy Mac

He should have had his business shut down and his house seized to pay for the damage. A 12 tonne limit and he goes over it with 48 tonnes, total idiot, no excuse.

paulm17781

paulm17781 wrote: »

I was baffled why such a large heavy truck was needed to carry pigeons.

He just hit the sides of the trailer to make the pigeons fly around to lighten the load!

corktina

i hope none of you ever get called for Jury duty.....how can you make judgements about the case when you havent heard the evidence...? did none of you ever make a mistake? this guy might have, and you'd take his house away from him? :rolleyes:

Evidence, the most crucial piece is "was he aware of the bridge weight restriction"
were the signs sufficient to alert him.
If the answer to the above is yes!
Guilty as charged!

As for unlimited liability - NO!

corktina

guilty yes (he peaded guilty) and its the Judges job to decide the sentance......he presumably made a decision based on the facts before him

SeanW

yeah but €300 flippin' Euro? It's one thing to - for example - take your eye off your speedometer and do 60kph in a 50 zone, it's another entirely to go over a little tiny bridge with a truck that was 4 times too heavy. That was carelessness to way beyond the point of stupidity and people that incompetent shouldn't be driving trucks on our roads.

Victor

bushy... wrote: »

Bit ridiculous for a new-ish bridge

It was meant as a temporary replacement.

Wishbone Ash

corktina wrote: »

i hope none of you ever get called for Jury duty.....how can you make judgements about the case when you havent heard the evidence...? did none of you ever make a mistake? this guy might have, and you'd take his house away from him? :rolleyes:

I was talking about this case to a relative tonight who also happens to transport pigs and co-incidently regularly draws them from Kerry to Cookstown (same route as the driver in question).

According to my relative that driver was using another appropriate road but was diverted back via that bridge by Co Council workers who were carrying out roadworks. When he enquired about the weight limit they said he'd "be grand".

I don't know whether this was brought up in court but it may explain the small fine.

corktina

.....mitigating circumsatances......and grounds for an appeal possibly....

corktina

light relief...heres an incident with some paralels also from Kerry.......note in both cases the surviving animals were rescued and safely delivereed to the slaughter house.....an irony lost on the animals I guess....

There were a few accidents on the line; the most serious one occurring on may 22, 1893, when three persons were killed. On that day there was a pig fair in Dingle and a special train left for Tralee hauling seven wagons of pigs. There was also one passenger coach, in which there were 38 people, mostly pig buyers. Nine others travelled in the guards van and the engine had a crew of three. Descending the steep gradient from Glounagalt (Gleann na Gealt - the Valley of the Mad) to Camp the train went out of control, careered down the hill and crashed over the bridge at Curraduff, Camp. The engine tumbled 40ft down the slope into the Finglas river. The three crew members in the engine were killed. They were Alfred Redshaw, the driver, Richard Dillon, the fireman, and Barney O'Loughlin, a permanent way inspector.The coach with the passengers hung precariously over the edge of the parapet, but miraculously it did not tumble over. Many of the passengers received minor injuries and some suffered from shock. Carcasses of pigs were strewn along the embankment. An interesting point regarding the engine involved. It was salvaged from the wreckage, repaired and actually served on the line until its final closure in 1953.

Del2005

The driver actually pleaded guilty to a dangerous driving charge and it was dropped a lesser charge. He made a wrong turn and couldn't correct it as the road was too narrow. He drove slowly to try and lessen the damage. When I was learning to drive an artic I was thought never to reverse when on your own, if in doubt drive over/through whatever is ahead as you have no idea what is behind you. What would people have said if he'd reversed up the road, if it was even possible, and hit a child or driven over a car with a people in it?

After loading the pigs, he asked for directions and travelled onto the village of Lixnaw. However, he took a wrong turning at the village and found himself down a narrow road.

The truck weighed over 45 tonnes with the pigs on board but passed two 12-tonne maximum weight restriction signs en route to the bridge. One of the weight restriction signs was 50m from the bridge. The vehicle "was almost across the bridge when it collapsed", Garda McCarthy said.

The tractor, or hub part of the lorry, had made it to the other side. It took an extensive operation to remove the rear of the lorry from the water.

The garda agreed that the articulated truck had no possibility of turning once it embarked on the narrow road. It was also put to the garda that the accused had taken directions from a farmer. Judge Mary O'Halloran intervened to say that was hearsay and "this farmer is nowhere to be found".

Mr Patterson co-operated with gardai and made a detailed statement. He felt he had no choice but to continue driving, Garda McCarthy agreed. He was driving slowly and had no previous convictions. The judge convicted Patterson of careless driving. He was also fined €300.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/pig-truck-driver-gets-8364300-fine-over-bridge-collapse-1262765.html

When I was in college doing engineering I was taught that any item rated for human use had to be able to withstand 10x the limit impossed, should Kerry CC not be in trouble for not meeting this as the bridge should have been able to take 120 tonnes?

Victor

Del2005 wrote: »

When I was in college doing engineering I was taught that any item rated for human use had to be able to withstand 10x the limit impossed

Isn't it usually 3x? And is 45t legal?

Hotblack Desiato

corktina wrote: »

i hope none of you ever get called for Jury duty.....how can you make judgements about the case when you havent heard the evidence...? did none of you ever make a mistake? this guy might have, and you'd take his house away from him? :rolleyes:

The problem with making 'mistakes' in relation to the Road Traffic Acts is that quite often, innocent parties end up killed. When you place yourself in control of a mechanically propelled vehicle, you are accepting responsibility for damage/injury caused by your vehicle. No excuses.

Hotblack Desiato

corktina wrote: »

light relief...heres an incident with some paralels also from Kerry......The three crew members in the engine were killed.

That is a strange and rather offensive definition of 'light relief'.

corktina

ninja900 wrote: »

The problem with making 'mistakes' in relation to the Road Traffic Acts is that quite often, innocent parties end up killed. When you place yourself in control of a mechanically propelled vehicle, you are accepting responsibility for damage/injury caused by your vehicle. No excuses.

...but noone was killed (except the unfortunate pigs.....see light relief/irony comments and read them in context...) and so calling for the guys house to be taken away or worse without knowing all the facts is OTT. The guy didnt make any excuses, he pleaded guilty...if you have a problem with the sentance, its the Judge you should be criticizing....its his job to make the sentance fit the crime

murphaph

Personally I'd make no judgement on the man until I'd seen the signs in question. Were they just on the narrow road approaching the bridge or were there signs indicating a weight restriction before (as would be the norm in say, the UK) he turned off the main st onto the narrow road?

Wishbone Ash

murphaph wrote: »

Personally I'd make no judgement on the man until I'd seen the signs in question. Were they just on the narrow road approaching the bridge or were there signs indicating a weight restriction before (as would be the norm in say, the UK) he turned off the main st onto the narrow road?

.......and were the signs proper official signs on reflective material or temporary cardboard ones.

mikemac

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

other appropriate road but was diverted back via that bridge by Co Council workers who were carrying out roadworks. When he enquired about the weight limit they said he'd "be grand".

Lol, gotta love the laid-back Irish attitude

murphaph

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

.......and were the signs proper official signs on reflective material or temporary cardboard ones.

You see these details are where we fall down. I bet that driver didn't have a very good legal team because I'm willing to wager that whatever signs were in place were not in accordance with the TSM in every respect (were they of the right material, size, location with respect to the carriageway, correct height, obscured in any way by dirt or overgrowth, were they even of te correct format (yes there are signs restricting HGVs that are in place but which do not exist in legislation and as such are totally unenforceable).

People may view this as "getting off on a technicality" but it's only when people challenge the law that it gets tightened up and the signage should consequently improve.

Wishbone Ash

murphaph wrote: »

You see these details are where we fall down. I bet that driver didn't have a very good legal team because I'm willing to wager that whatever signs were in place were not in accordance with the TSM in every respect (were they of the right material, size, location with respect to the carriageway, correct height, obscured in any way by dirt or overgrowth, were they even of te correct format (yes there are signs restricting HGVs that are in place but which do not exist in legislation and as such are totally unenforceable).

People may view this as "getting off on a technicality" but it's only when people challenge the law that it gets tightened up and the signage should consequently improve.

100% agree.

murphaph

So do we have any Kerry based contributors who could take some snaps for us?

Wishbone Ash

murphaph wrote: »

So do we have any Kerry based contributors who could take some snaps for us?

I was just thinking the same thing! I like to see it.

Wishbone Ash

Victor wrote: »

And is 45t legal?

Sorry Victor, I meant to answer this yesterday but forgot about it.

If he was running on six axles on air suspension he would be legal up to 44 tonnes (although many ROI artics usually have 5 axles - 2 on the tractor and 3 on the trailer).

In saying that, it's a fact of life that many trucks run overweight as the chances of being stopped are small and loads such as livestock are probably paid by weight.

As far as I know, the rig in question was a standard triple deck articulated (tractor+semi trailer) one so the oportunity to run over weight would be limited as the overall length is standard.

However many livestock operators are now using 'draw-bar' units (also referred to as 'drag-units'). These consist of a triple decked body, standard length truck drawing a 'proper' trailer. The draw bar unit pictured below would be of a legal length but many Irish operators draw a much longer trailer with front and rear axles. I've seen them up to 75 feet long so the oportunity to overload would be much greater.

You may occasionally see logging trailers parked up on lay-bys. These operators also frequently run overweight. Some sawmills will not accept the overweight load so the drivers simple bring the full draw-bar rig 90% of the way, then drop the trailer, proceed with the rigid load and return to pick up the trailer for delivery.

The major problem is that most Gardai haven't a clue about truck lengths and weights and generally leave it to the Customs. The drivers then just avoid routes with weigh bridges.

Draw-Bar Livestock Truck



Standard Articulated Livestock Truck

godtabh

Victor wrote: »

Isn't it usually 3x?

Are y ou talking about factors of safety?

Really depends on when the bridge was designed and the company designing it. I'd reckon there would be a fair but of redundancy built into it but thats not really the point.

Wishbone Ash

Del2005 wrote: »

When I was in college doing engineering I was taught that any item rated for human use had to be able to withstand 10x the limit impossed, should Kerry CC not be in trouble for not meeting this as the bridge should have been able to take 120 tonnes?

While I don't wish to contradict you as I've no knowledge of engineering, I find that difficult to accept.

Suppose for example, traffic was at a standstill on the 6 lane M50 Liffey bridge and say 40 fully laden trucks are stopped. Are you seriously suggesting that it will be capable of widthstanding 16,000 tonnes (40x40x10)?

When very heavy exceptional loads are being transported around the country, why is it necessary to inspect bridges in advance even when many of these loads may only be twice the normal legal limit?

Carawaystick

Del may have mistaken the extra load of a dynamic load versus a static load.
this order is a common rule of thumb for the difference.

think of the difference between a 30 tonne load left down as softly as a feather compared to a 3 tonne load travelling across the bridge at 100kmh

I presume securing a criminal conviction makes getting the civil damages much easier.

godtabh

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Suppose for example, traffic was at a standstill on the 6 lane M50 Liffey bridge and say 40 fully laden trucks are stopped. Are you seriously suggesting that it will be capable of widthstanding 16,000 tonnes (40x40x10)?

I remember I was at the bridge opening and was at the speeches when some one said that a jumbo jet could land on it (I presume he meant weight wise).

The bridge is about 300-400 meters long.

Therefore assume 40 trucks per lane by 6 lanes.

That's 240 trucks. 40t per truck so that's 9600 tones. Add a factor of safety of 3 and that's 28800 tones. Could easily happen and would have to be taken account in the design consideration.

While these are just back of ciggerate box calculations I would say that the calcs arent that far off.

I think the min traffic loading is 10kn/m^2 but for something like this it would be alot more

murphaph

I have my doubts that all the required signage would have been in place. Any idea how I might forward this to the driver? Grounds for appeal if these were not in place surely!

There's nothing like a high profile court case to highlight the shoddy signage.

Wishbone Ash

murphaph wrote: »

I have my doubts that all the required signage would have been in place. Any idea how I might forward this to the driver? Grounds for appeal if these were not in place surely!

I'd say if the proper signage wasn't in place at the time of the incident, it probably is now.

You could send the info to him - I think his address (or most of it) is given in earlier posts.

Pity someone living in the area wouldn't take a few pics and upload them. I'd nearly consider going down for a spin.

Del2005

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

While I don't wish to contradict you as I've no knowledge of engineering, I find that difficult to accept.

Suppose for example, traffic was at a standstill on the 6 lane M50 Liffey bridge and say 40 fully laden trucks are stopped. Are you seriously suggesting that it will be capable of widthstanding 16,000 tonnes (40x40x10)?

When very heavy exceptional loads are being transported around the country, why is it necessary to inspect bridges in advance even when many of these loads may only be twice the normal legal limit?

It was a long time ago, so I'd say I'm wrong. Had a look on the net and can't find anything to back me up:(

KC113

Here is a picture of the actual incident taken from "The Kerryman".

gogs2006

i live in the area..the local theory is that he was sent down that road deliberately...locals have been calling for a new bridge for years...this driver was the perfect excuse for the council to construct a new bridge...

he asked council workers and a local farmer for directions...he was told to ignore the signs and carry on...

the farmer has yet to come forward

Del2005

gogs2006 wrote: »

i live in the area..the local theory is that he was sent down that road deliberately...locals have been calling for a new bridge for years...this driver was the perfect excuse for the council to construct a new bridge...

he asked council workers and a local farmer for directions...he was told to ignore the signs and carry on...

the farmer has yet to come forward

Did the council workers get questioned? Should they not have been charged with reckless endangerment, if there is such a charge?

gogs2006

Del2005 wrote: »

Did the council workers get questioned? Should they not have been charged with reckless endangerment, if there is such a charge?

i'am unsure what the situation is...... as i said in my post it was a 'local theory' so please don't take it as fact.....

Wishbone Ash

gogs2006 wrote: »

i live in the area..the local theory is that he was sent down that road deliberately...locals have been calling for a new bridge for years...this driver was the perfect excuse for the council to construct a new bridge...

he asked council workers and a local farmer for directions...he was told to ignore the signs and carry on...

the farmer has yet to come forward

I heard a similar story from a relative who also draws pigs on the same route - see post #17.

Hotblack Desiato

murphaph wrote: »

Grounds for appeal if these were not in place surely!

Surely one cannot appeal a guilty plea?

marmajam

gogs2006 wrote: »

i live in the area..the local theory is that he was sent down that road deliberately...locals have been calling for a new bridge for years...this driver was the perfect excuse for the council to construct a new bridge...

he asked council workers and a local farmer for directions...he was told to ignore the signs and carry on...

the farmer has yet to come forward

I heard that secret radiation from UFOs changed the road signs and it was'nt the driver's fault.
It must be true, a bloke down the pub told me.