That is shocking. Though the thought that comes to mind is I suppose there is only so much a firm can do to try and coach and vet their drivers, the actions of one employee in that situation might be hard to forsee until something happens like this.
No doubt there will be lots of probing questions to answer to all involved.
Reminds me of a story my late father told meā¦He ran lorries through the 60s till the early 70s and he had a driver hit a railway bridge with a container, then did a runner. My father said it was on the local news because the bridge was closed while they repaired it and the container was knackered but police never found out who did it. Bet my father was sweating for a while 
To be fair the photo of the actual incident in Kent news online suggests that the driver didnāt actually hit the bridge with the container.He stopped at the start when he saw that the bridge was even too low for the unit.No way that bridge is 13ā3āā clearance.If heās guilty of anything itās what numerous other drivers do he thought heād take a chance that the bridge had some spare clearance over the marked height and crawled UK to try it rather than risk a U turn there.
How do you do a hit and run having to turn around an artic there.
Incorrect. Kent news online reported that heād hit the bridge and that motorists snapped the incident, so that picture obviously shows him reversing out. I wouldnāt have posted what I posted otherwise. Like you and most drivers in the distant past, I too have sneaked up close when unsure of my height and done a recce before withdrawing. Today, you have to have the height displayed in the cab so thereās no excuse for doing even that.
As for his own withdrawal, the bridge is sited almost above a mini roundabout, round which he could easily reverse so long as the cars behind him could be persuaded to back up, if indeed there were any.
im not sure on that oneā¦ If im in a unit marked at a given height and the bridge is marked as higher but looks iffy i would still sneak up and check I wouldnt go blundering through thinking if i hit it i hit it.
I 100% agree. I always did exactly that when in doubt, often hanging out of the driverās window to guage the gap. I never hit a bridge.
Another email from the agency this week about a driver in the South that stopped at a bridge marked lower than his trailer height, lowered his suspension, then hit it 
I think I need to find a full time job because if this carries on the agency is surely at risk!?
off subject i know a driver that used to deliver to an underground (under building) point for months it had been shut off while they did building work. one night he rocked up and the security man said good news you can go down to the bay its all done. so off he went as he pulled off the ramp he heard plinkā¦ plinkā¦ plinkā¦ when he looked in his mirrors he could see water pouring from the celing. he had taken off all the sprinkler heads. No one had thought to re measure the height where they had relaid the floor and what used to be ok nolonger was
if its one of the other drivers that work for your agency as well i dunno where the agency stands as far as legal responsibility as unless they are providing vehicles as well its not their concern as such.
if the client gets rid of you for that reason i would say it was a rum deal as (im assuming here) you have done nothing wrong.
I was referring to Tesco cutting the agency because of all the bridge strikes. I thankfully wasnāt involved!
The photo that I saw suggested that heād just contacted the bridge with the extended height unit cabās air foil and he knew it because he was taking an erroneous chance anyway ?.
The bridge didnāt have enough clearance for even the unit.Looks like he trusted and took a silly liberty based on the bridge height marking which looks way out.
Luckily like Rob I was always paranoid about height and donāt ever remember getting far enough to need a last minute evasion anywhere.But like to give drivers the benefit of the doubt if the posted height looks āoffā.
Looks like 6 of one half dozen of the council in this case.No harm done.
But if he did hit it with the container that would/should be a deal breaker career and licence toast.
At least he tried 
What a lot of old tosh! Iāve known that bridge well for 64 years, 56 years of which Iāve been driving under it. Itās been hit innumerable times, which is why the correct height is well displayed. Youād argue black was white for the sake of it.
And what if he did only graze it with his deflector? You either hit the bridge or you didnāt: itās an on/off switch FFS.
Obviously āifā he did āonlyā catch the bridge with the unit then either the unit is over 13ā high or the bridge marking is wrong ?.The unit clearly isnāt over 13ā high ?.
Itās a serious charge of hitting a bridge and then running then he obviously at least deserves an equally serious defence.
We donāt know for sure ( yet ) that he actually hit the bridge with the container, as opposed to just the unit, before turning back.
The latter would be the difference between hit and run v misled into contact with a bridge by dodgy signage.
You are still trying to make this look a grey area. It isnāt. The second you so much as glance a bridge with a vehicle, regardless of whether there is or not structural damage, the bridge has to be closed for civil engineers to inspect it. In this case the busy Ramsgate to London line was closed in both directions. In my case I very nearly missed a medical appointment Iād waited five years for. Others may have lost job interviews, had babies in ditches or missed their motherās dying words for all I know. The bridge is well pre-signed, hugely signed on site and visually it is obviously a low bridge if youāve ever driven a lorry. My goodness Iād love to hear you defend yourself in court after claiming to graze a wrongly categorised railway bridge 
!
You canāt be a little bit pregnant!
A standard box on a decent skellie might be under 4.0m.
That is a skellie with a thick neck on it and a high cube box.
A blind man can see that is way too high to go under.
Indeed you canāt, which is why the imaginary lady had her baby in a ditch (couldnāt wait). Glad you appreciated my hyperbole!
Assuming that he actually stopped before the container reached the bridge, but contacted it with an <13ā high unit, thatās not the same thing as hitting the bridge with a 13ā> container.
It would suggest being misled/confused by incorrect signage ?.
Unless youāre saying that the unit is 13ā> high ?.
Yes I agree he was probably taking badly advised liberties with the available clearance, based on the posted height, erroneously thinking that the container might just get through but abandoned the attempt at the first sign of insufficient clearance for even the unit.
IE technically he hasnāt hit the bridge with an over height vehicle heād stopped before that point.
Any decent lawyer could argue that case ( depending on the actual measured height of the unit but 13ā would be exceptional ) and no proof that the container contacted the bridge.It just doesnāt look like thereās 13ā3āā of clearance being available by the photo.Agreed the container is over 13ā3āā and he knew it.
You are clearly more of a wind-up merchant than I took you for. The news said heād hit the bridge. The tannoy announcements and written display matrixes in the station said heād hit the bridge. That news has not been rescinded. You appear to know better, as usual.
