Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Drink Driving, Don't Risk It!

Forth Road Bridge to get £2m windshields

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 25 April 2009
PROTECTIVE barriers are to be installed on the Forth Road Bridge to cut the risk of vehicles being blown over in strong winds and causing traffic chaos.
The £2 million windshielding scheme is planned for around the crossing's two towers, where the risk of sudden gusts is at its greatest.

Two lorries overturned close to the south tower within six weeks of each other last year, leading to widespread
and lengthy tailbacks while they were recovered.

The Forth Estuary Transport Authority, which runs the bridge, agreed yesterday to the scheme, which will involve vertical slats, tapering up to 14ft high and covering 140ft of the carriageways around the towers.

They would be installed over the next two to three years and are expected be made from a transparent material to minimise the visual impact on the bridge.

The project will require planning approval from both Edinburgh and Fife councils, and also the agreement of Historic Scotland as the crossing is a listed structure.

Similar windshielding was installed nearly 20 years ago on the Severn Bridge over the Bristol Channel.

The suspension bridge is of similar design to the Forth Road Bridge and was completed two years later, in 1966.

Its windshielding has reduced the level of risk of vehicles being blown over near the towers to that for the rest of the bridge.

It was originally thought that windshielding could not be added to the current Forth crossing because of the extra stresses caused by the force of the wind.

The planned adjacent Forth Replacement Crossing – like the Second Severn Crossing – will have full windshielding.

Motoring groups applauded the plans. Philip Gomm, a spokesman for the Royal Automobile Club Foundation, said: "Strong winds have been a real hazard for drivers using the Forth Road Bridge and this remedial action will be welcomed if it works.

"Comfort must be taken from the seemingly long-standing effectiveness of a similar scheme on the original Severn Crossing cited by the engineers."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 24 April 2009 9:44 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Forth Bridges
 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 25/04/2009 00:53:25


One might wonder, why this was not done, donkey-years-ago.

Also is this really a good idea?, personally speaking, I think this will give drivers a 'false level of security' and will make them speed over the Bridge, coming out on the other side, then,....

.....'Getting-Blown-Away'!, ending up on their side!


2

Incandescent,

25/04/2009 03:19:54
Actually Charles, "one might wonderW ehy this would cost £1m - a ridiculous sum in any other country for the task at hand.
3

Navvy,

25/04/2009 07:44:01
Only a technical ignoramus would say that teh Servern Bridge was similar to the Forth Road Bridge. There are very significant differences.

The wind shiled will add loading and accelerate stress related decay.

Further, the Severn Crossing has already been replaced with a modern bridge 3 lanes each way!
4

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 25/04/2009 09:13:02
As regular users of the bridge shielding will do nothing for those who think that "High Winds - 40 MPH" signs are for wimps. If in a gale you've been passed by an articulated lorry with a 40'long, high sided trailer you will know what it can do to the average car.
Suggest that FETA fit average speed cameras and see if that has a beneficial effect.
5

FTH22inarow,

25/04/2009 09:15:38
never had a problem driving over the bridge so far, £2 mill down the drain
6

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 25/04/2009 10:44:25
More money thrown at a problem which does not exist.

There are programable signs everywhere around the forth road bridge all they need is a wind gauge (£1500 for a really good one!) a self sustaining real time reporting relay system (£5,000 would be ample) and PC (£500) programmed to get the sign to say;

'High sided vehicles - divert to .... wherever ... but no o'er the bridge the noo, but'

... when the windspeed/gusts exceed

There you go .. problem solved £21,000 ..... for 3 systems just to be safe ....

Government always seems to find the most expensive, ineffective solution to what ever 'problem' they have to deal with ... this may give us an insight into the calibre and ethos of those who are supposed to serve the common good and look after taxpayers interests ....
7

Duncan in Edinburgh,

25/04/2009 11:26:24
#6 They already measure wind speed and have variable signs diverting high-sided vehicles. The problem is that drivers ignore them. Which would be fine if they were the only ones affected by their stupidity, but they aren't.
8

CRAGman,

25/04/2009 11:47:46
Why do we need another bridge?
9

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 25/04/2009 12:26:20
7:- Then let natural selection take its course !/ - Or god forbid a policeman or two placed at the junction before the bridge enforcing the signage - they can afford traffic wardens by the bushell so they can get a couple of rozzers out there !

It just seems like the government can't deal in small sums of money - they don't speak in £1000's they automatically talk £millions or £billions now with no regard for the the taxpayer nor common sense.
10

Duncan in Edinburgh,

25/04/2009 13:15:46
#9 Hello? Do you read English? There were only three sentences in my comment, and you've managed to ignore the last one, which pointed out that the effects of the drivers' stupidity is not limited to themselves. For pity's sake, debate on here is hard enough without having to say everything twice.

So your brilliant suggestion is that every time there are strong winds at the bridge (hundreds of times a year) we should divert L&B officers to station themselves at the southern end of the bridge for the duration of that period?

And you're the one who bangs on about "broken Britain"? Really, you are the most illogical, Daily Mail esque commentator on here.

Get a clue.
11

,

25/04/2009 22:27:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 26/04/2009 11:08:15
10:- Would stationing a couple of cops 24/7 on the junction cost £2millon ? Nope (well maybe over 20 years or so). Is it a cheaper and more effective solution with teeth - Yes!

Tell me the truth; have you come off your medication or was it the lead paint that did it ?

A Bit of advice ... think things through before you comment .. that way you won't look like such Socialist Worker reading LIB/LAB spendthrift idiot all the time .... xx
13

Duncan in Edinburgh,

26/04/2009 11:38:48
#12 Stationing two police officers 24/7 at the south of the FRB would cost £2 million over less than 2 years, because it would require recruitment and training and salaries and vehicles for three 2-person teams, plus all the associated costs.

So is it a cheaper and more effective solution? Of course it isn't.

It would also, by the way, attract a massive outcry from numpties like you moaning about the waste of police resources on traffic offences when they should be out catching "proper" criminals.

Take your own advice.
14

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 26/04/2009 12:24:39
13- Unlucky for some ...

I thought some genius accountant must come along and tell us that stationing a couple of cops would cost £5 billion because of all the kit they would have to have and special bridge watching Health and Safety courses they would have to attend and the years of training - ex-cetera balderdash !

Again you find yourself assuming reactions - which you are not very good at - There would be no outcry from me - I think proper road safety watches that really have results should be a priority for the police it is not a waste of their time at all.

If you are insinuating that every two officers that are recruited cost £1 million a year then it is no wonder that Britain is so broken and being hung out to dry by ludicrous Labour accounting.

The only reason that left wing cretins like yourself like the big numbers for simple projects is so more pointless jobs are created for your unions to grow fat on.

But lets look at this £2million suggestion - How long would the barriers last? How often would they need cleaned and/or painted? What cost would there be to inspect the extra stress on the bridge on an ongoing basis? What cost is attributed to the addition wear and tear they would cause ? Is there any guarantee they would work ?

As usual £2million is a sledgehammer to crack a nut - no bother to the Spend Junkies mind you - Maybe Police aren't the answer - but they are cheaper - they are employed anyway and if they had less paperwork the'd have more resource spare and by god they would work or it would be a brave motorist to try and get past them!

If the government didn't want to use Police they could probably find an existing system using their cctv and wind monitors to fine the begeebers out of any high sided motorist that went across the bridge when they were told not to. I'd wager that this would cost less than £2million, it would prevent the problem rather than pandering to it and the government would get more of that money they are
15

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 26/04/2009 12:26:24
cont ....

so fond of taking off us.

Duncan - I really, really hope you are not incharge of anything too major in life though if you were it would explain alot .....
16

Duncan in Edinburgh,

26/04/2009 14:27:22
#14 Yet again you can't read, or conveniently ignore things which don't suit you.

You said a 24/7 presence at the bridge. This cannot be covered by 2 people, quite obviously, which is why I costed 6, plus vehicles, plus training.

Different police forces have different staff costs, so it's impossible to be 100% accurate with costings like this, but if you asked the government I'm sure the figures wouldn't be far off what I posited.

The real world doesn't have simple solutions. Remember that the next time you decide to spout your Daily Mail garbage.
17

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 26/04/2009 21:44:02
16 - Lib/Lab Duncan

The real world DOES have simple solutions it is just that people like you complicate the obvious and attach great bills for the taxpayer to it.

You refuse to see simplicity where expense and bureaucracy can be implemented. You seek an inefficient toothless, complex, corrupt solutions instead.

I would recommend a long cold hard think to yourself and meditate on useful effective solutions rather than perpetrate your spendthrift large government ways. Be aware that broken Britain is YOUR legacy and our children shall remember your type as democratic terrorists and democracy shy arrogant individuals who did nothing but think of themselves to the expense of all others.

You are a dinosaur who doesn't see the comet of real democracy heading straight for you. You are the past, an assassin of common sense, an overlord of corruption and a weak and feeble example of the old ways. You and your type do not represent the people you consider them as an inconvenience. Nothing that you do or say makes sense in the real world, you attach £millions to a solution that actually needs £21,000 and in that you betray everything that is decent and honest. What is more you role out your folly as a favour but you do not realise that you are like glass; brittle and transparent.

You do nothing but represent the backward and corrupt whilst hiding behind lies that may trap the stupid. End of story.

18

Duncan in Edinburgh,

26/04/2009 22:14:03
#17 Another day, another torrent of impotent rage from you. I note with some amusement that you now think the solution to this will cost just £21,000. I'd be fascinated to know how you reached that figure.

You mention democracy again. As I just said to you on the other thread, demanding a referendum on every issue on which you disagree with the elected government is not democracy - it's petulance.

You are the embodiment of what is wrong with this country. You cry "broken Britain" and "simple" solutions but you are utterly unwilling to face the reality of a complex world. You need to grow up.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Would you support the return of tolls to fund a new Forth Road Bridge?
No, it should be paid for in the same way as other roads.
Yes, it’s fairer for users to bear the brunt of the cost.
Yes, as long as it was only for a fixed amount of time.


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.