Jump to content

Recommended Posts

And don't the Veolia collection teams wear uniforms with Southwark Council logo on them...this might explain why the councillors were so keen to point out the lorry wasn't operated by the council because if you saw a load of people clambering out of the cab of a lorry one that just rolled wearing clothing emblazoned with the council logo you might think it was being operated by the council.

The Helen Hayes reference is weird as well it was almost as if the councillor post was: this is awful, nothing to do with us, speak to Helen.

Went to the junction today to check the "scene of the event" to try and work out from the tyre marks on the road and the damage to the kerb, what were the contributing factors to the accident. Here are my observations and deductions.


1.Compaction type refuse collection trucks, such as these, are exceptionally "tail-heavy" due the the weight of the hydraulic compaction mechanism and the fact that this weight is positioned on the  rear overhang ie behind the rear wheels.

2. To compensate for the extra weight, the truck is fitted with a "tag axle". The tag axle is located  forward of the rearmost axle. When fully laden, all the rear tyres will be running at very close to their operating limit.

3. The tag axle has only 2 wheels as opposed to 4 wheels on the rearmost axle. So on either side at the rear, there a three wheels. So if one rear tyre on the near side has lost pressure,  the weight carried by the remaining two is increased by 50%.

4. Being tail-heavy with a high centre of gravity, the driver of such vehicles should be ultra cautious when cornering.

5. When turning to the right,  the weight imposed on near side tyres is further increased depending on the speed involved.

6. The two long curved tyre marks on the road  suggest that only two of the 3 tyres on the near side were taking the weight. 

7 These curved tyre marks end abruptly and I'm trying to work out exactly why. This spot is  very close to where the  near side rear wheels  slide up against the kerb and the wheel rims gouge out chunks  of the kerb stones. There is a possibility that the driver braked late and so caused the tyres to loose all grip and so slide into the kerb.

If there are any forensic traffic experts around, I would welcome their take on this.

AAViolia.jpg

Crash.jpg

  • Thanks 2
On 13/04/2025 at 11:33, Spartacus said:

Wow 

So many armchair accident investigators putting forward their theorys. My thoughts are that we should wait for an official investigation to tell us what actually happened. 

I'm really enjoying this episode of CSI: Dulwich. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
6 hours ago, Insuflo said:

Vladi, you are wrong. The single wheel tag axle is fitted at the rearmost, behind the twin wheel, driven axle. This is obvious from photos of the upturned vehicle.

I could not discern that from the photo , nonetheless I stand corrected. Yes, the rear rearmost axle is the tag axle on this model as evidenced by the orientation of the dishing of the wheels. Violia obviously have a mix of different axle arrangements. See my photo above. 

The biggest one they have is a 8x4 with a full 8 wheel rear bogie as showm below.

 

Violia 8x4.jpg

3 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

Amazing clean up job done too.

The truck has come out of it pretty unscathed as well.

They could've righted it, T Cut out the damage and left it back at the depot, parked with the nearside next to a wall - let the next shift explain it.

Either that or say it was hijacked by a bunch of insurgent Brummie council tax payers.

  • Haha 3
16 hours ago, Sue said:

More aftermath photos when it had been righted.

This photo does not show the lorry wearing the livery those which collect in our bit of Southwark wear, which suggests it was not a lorry in use on a Southwark contract, which might explain why the council appeared to have no knowledge of it. It could have been running empty which may mean it was top heavy and more vulnerable at any speed if cornering, even legal speeds if the corner was tight. No rubbish seems to have come out of it in the incident. 

23 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

This photo does not show the lorry wearing the livery those which collect in our bit of Southwark wear, which suggests it was not a lorry in use on a Southwark contract, which might explain why the council appeared to have no knowledge of it. It could have been running empty which may mean it was top heavy and more vulnerable at any speed if cornering, even legal speeds if the corner was tight. No rubbish seems to have come out of it in the incident. 

When I spoke to the driver, he suggested it was 'quite full' 

 

  • Like 1
On 15/04/2025 at 07:57, Penguin68 said:

This photo does not show the lorry wearing the livery those which collect in our bit of Southwark wear, which suggests it was not a lorry in use on a Southwark contract, which might explain why the council appeared to have no knowledge of it. It could have been running empty which may mean it was top heavy and more vulnerable at any speed if cornering, even legal speeds if the corner was tight. No rubbish seems to have come out of it in the incident. 

Running empty would mean that the centre pf gravity would be at its lowest possible and less likely to flip over. No rubbish would come out as the compactor mechanism keeps the rear "shovel" closed when the truck is in motion

compactor.jpg

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I will buy you a frothy coffee from anywhere you like on Lordship Lane if that happens. Most of these costs never get recovered from the drivers that caused them. The photo shows a car that's been left on the zigzags protecting the crossing. Pedestrians crossing East to West and drivers heading South won't see each other until the pedestrians are in the road. That is a dangerous position to leave a car in. (I don't know if it's stil there, obviously).
    • Seems a pretty dangerous position to me - apart from getting in the way of pedestrians trying to cross the road large vehicles heading south have to edge into the oncoming traffic lane to get past. I've got a normal-sized car and had to squeeze through a gap the other day.  
    • When a car is left damaged by the road-side it may be that the insurer is tasked with recovering the vehicle to assess it and (possibly) take it for repair. Only if it is in a dangerous position will the police recover it - which saves money for the tax-payer.  You may also have some recovery options with e.g. the AA (other organisations are available). Were the car to have been stolen or abandoned then it will take some time to sort this out, and again unless the vehicle is in a dangerous position the police won't be rushing to deal with that. Not sure who the 'they' are in this case.
    • I wouldn't like to speculate, Sue. Not my thing. Teddy Boy is your man on the ground for that sort of first-hand detail. It's six points for driving without insurance and six points for using a phone, so that's an automatic ban of at least six months. They're going to be practically uninsurable for a considerable period after that. So, nobody's hurt, a clearly crap driver is off the road for some time and the good burghers of SE22 get a lovely, shiny new post - probably paid for by the driver. Every cloud, and that. If only Franklins wasn't changing hands, Lordship Lane would be almost perfect.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...