Am 02.02.2022 um 08:36 schrieb Roland Perry:
> In message <d7qoci-8is.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 22:53:00 on Tue, 1
> Feb 2022, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> remarked:
>> On 01/02/2022 08:07, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>> Mainly by showing pictures (I'm getting quite fed up posting them,
>>> apparently to no effect) of identical-looking vehicles being the most
>>> common casualty at the bridge.
>
>>>  For a final time:
>>>  http://www.perry.co.uk/images/DPD_18-09-2017.jpg
>>
>> I think that van was several inches too high, rather than the one inch
>> that you you suggest.
>
> What you think, and what I think, differ quite a lot then. And I note I
> was on site that day, and you probably weren't.
>
> [My photos of this phenomenon are a combination of scrapes(sic) from
>  social media and newspapers, but the vast majority are ones I took
>  myself].
>
> How do you think the side-panel came through so relatively unscathed if
> "several inches" too tall? The damage is mainly to the wind deflector
> and front couple of feet of the roof.

The fact that the wind deflector was hit and that the side panel on the
picture is 2-3 inches above the top of the wind deflector. If there was
only one inch missing, the wind panel should not have been hit at all.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <j5tb9kF36viU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:08:52 on Tue, 1 Feb
> 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <st907b$ssj$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:45:47 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>
>>> Thinking about this some more, there are often natural break-points in
>>> the height of things.
>>>
>>> Why would anyone want a van that was higher than the DPD one I pictured
>>> earlier? At this point the limiting factor is almost certainly weight,
>>> and therefore the licence a driver requires.
>>>
>> Dreams the bedding supplier presumably as mattresses and pillows are bulky
>> but relatively light weight items used to have a Mercedes Sprinter Fleet
>> that looked quite tall,
>>
>> <https://warehousenews.co.uk/2014/01/dreams-enables-6000-home-
>> deliveries-a-week-with-paragon-software/>
>
> While that might be the same Sprinter chassis-cab, it's not the kind of
> off-the-shelf Sprinter that van hire companies normally rent out.
>
> This is the one I hired (and would fit: "Vehicle Overall Height:
> 2590mm"): <https://bayfieldvehiclehire.co.uk/vehicle/long-wheel-base-
> van/>
>
> And this is a rather taller (3.4m**), but same general shape, which
> keeps bashing (not that hire company's example so far though):
> <https://bayfieldvehiclehire.co.uk/vehicle/luton/>
>
> That second one only has a legal payload of 1100kg, which is not many
> mattresses. Especially as it includes the weight of the fuel, driver and
> any passengers, and the wild-card which is the plywood lining.
>
>> The later ones I see now do not look quite as tall.
>
> Those 'Dreams' ones you picture have a custom-built back, and won't be
> driven by 'strangers' (such as one-day hirers), let alone relatively
> young strangers who might only have a 3.5t driving licence. It would be
> a *very* good idea to put the height of those Dreams vans on a sticker
> in the cab (even if it's less than 3m). And maybe they do need their
> drivers to have a 7.5t licence, if they anticipate filling them up with
> mattresses.
>

I agree with what you are saying there but my reply was in answer to your
question

“ Why would anyone want a van that was higher than the DPD one ?“. Using
“anyone “widens the scope considerably from just hirers .

I chose Dreams because they are relatively common but there are others
whose need is for load volume or sized for specialist loads rather than
reaching a weight limit.
One of the latter are glaziers who often have a standard bodied van but
whose dimensions have become higher and wider once the carrying framework
is attached. With Glass being heavy perhaps it is easy to overload with
smaller items carried within and the larger ones outside.

The outside frames of course allow for some leeway when being sized as they
go downwards as well effectively giving the vehicle a very low if narrow
“floor”.

Some examples here
<http://www.glazingvans.com/mercedessprinter.html>

GH

In message <stdfu3$pdl$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:38:28 on Wed, 2 Feb 2022,
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> remarked:
>Am 02.02.2022 um 08:36 schrieb Roland Perry:
>> In message <d7qoci-8is.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 22:53:00 on Tue,
>>1 Feb 2022, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> remarked:
>>> On 01/02/2022 08:07, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>>> Mainly by showing pictures (I'm getting quite fed up posting them,
>>>> apparently to no effect) of identical-looking vehicles being the most
>>>> common casualty at the bridge.
>>
>>>>  For a final time:
>>>>  http://www.perry.co.uk/images/DPD_18-09-2017.jpg
>>>
>>> I think that van was several inches too high, rather than the one
>>>inch that you you suggest.

>> What you think, and what I think, differ quite a lot then. And I
>>note I was on site that day, and you probably weren't.

>> [My photos of this phenomenon are a combination of scrapes(sic) from
>>  social media and newspapers, but the vast majority are ones I took
>>  myself].

>> How do you think the side-panel came through so relatively unscathed
>>if "several inches" too tall? The damage is mainly to the wind
>>deflector and front couple of feet of the roof.
>
>The fact that the wind deflector was hit and that the side panel on the
>picture is 2-3 inches above the top of the wind deflector. If there
>was only one inch missing, the wind panel should not have been hit at
>all.

The wind deflector would not normally protrude above the roof-line, but
the side panel goes all the way up to the roof-line. However it's ended
up, the roof-line is only a very tiny bit higher than the bridge.
--
Roland Perry

In message <j5v120Fcv5cU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:26:24 on Wed, 2 Feb
2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <j5tb9kF36viU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:08:52 on Tue, 1 Feb
>> 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <st907b$ssj$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:45:47 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>
>>>> Thinking about this some more, there are often natural break-points in
>>>> the height of things.
>>>>
>>>> Why would anyone want a van that was higher than the DPD one I pictured
>>>> earlier? At this point the limiting factor is almost certainly weight,
>>>> and therefore the licence a driver requires.
>>>>
>>> Dreams the bedding supplier presumably as mattresses and pillows are bulky
>>> but relatively light weight items used to have a Mercedes Sprinter Fleet
>>> that looked quite tall,
>>>
>>> <https://warehousenews.co.uk/2014/01/dreams-enables-6000-home-
>>> deliveries-a-week-with-paragon-software/>
>>
>> While that might be the same Sprinter chassis-cab, it's not the kind of
>> off-the-shelf Sprinter that van hire companies normally rent out.
>>
>> This is the one I hired (and would fit: "Vehicle Overall Height:
>> 2590mm"): <https://bayfieldvehiclehire.co.uk/vehicle/long-wheel-base-
>> van/>
>>
>> And this is a rather taller (3.4m**), but same general shape, which
>> keeps bashing (not that hire company's example so far though):
>> <https://bayfieldvehiclehire.co.uk/vehicle/luton/>
>>
>> That second one only has a legal payload of 1100kg, which is not many
>> mattresses. Especially as it includes the weight of the fuel, driver and
>> any passengers, and the wild-card which is the plywood lining.
>>
>>> The later ones I see now do not look quite as tall.
>>
>> Those 'Dreams' ones you picture have a custom-built back, and won't be
>> driven by 'strangers' (such as one-day hirers), let alone relatively
>> young strangers who might only have a 3.5t driving licence. It would be
>> a *very* good idea to put the height of those Dreams vans on a sticker
>> in the cab (even if it's less than 3m). And maybe they do need their
>> drivers to have a 7.5t licence, if they anticipate filling them up with
>> mattresses.
>
>I agree with what you are saying there but my reply was in answer to your
>question
>
>“ Why would anyone want a van that was higher than the DPD one ?“. Using
>“anyone “widens the scope considerably from just hirers .

If you say so. After all, mattress delivery vans comprise such a high
percentage of vehicles on the road. I suppose you see them every few
minutes.

>I chose Dreams because they are relatively common but there are others
>whose need is for load volume or sized for specialist loads rather than
>reaching a weight limit.

And I don't think mattresses are a particularly good example, because
they are sufficiently dense that a van like that will exceed its 3.5t
(realistically 800kg payload) limit long before the volume limit.

>One of the latter are glaziers who often have a standard bodied van but
>whose dimensions have become higher and wider once the carrying framework
>is attached. With Glass being heavy perhaps it is easy to overload with
>smaller items carried within and the larger ones outside.

And I would be astonished if the vans with glazing attached on the side
were not accompanied by specific instructions to the drivers on what
their height was.

>The outside frames of course allow for some leeway when being sized as they
>go downwards as well effectively giving the vehicle a very low if narrow
>“floor”.
>
>Some examples here
><http://www.glazingvans.com/mercedessprinter.html>

Precisely! With a size the external frame of 2.675m, you'd have to be
super-stupid to think the top didn't exceed a 2.7m height limit. The
bottom would have to be only 25cm (one inch) above the road surface and
it's quite obvious from the photos it's much more than that. Looks like
about SIX inches to me.

Of course, that's about 150cm, added to the 2.7m signed at Ely comes to
exactly the 2.85 if measures. So another prime candidate for a wedgie.
(And a wedgie that would be avoided if the road surface was an inch
lower).

Nice try, but cigars in short supply!
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <j5v120Fcv5cU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:26:24 on Wed, 2 Feb
> 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <j5tb9kF36viU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:08:52 on Tue, 1 Feb
>>> 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <st907b$ssj$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:45:47 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>
>>>>> Thinking about this some more, there are often natural break-points in
>>>>> the height of things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would anyone want a van that was higher than the DPD one I pictured
>>>>> earlier? At this point the limiting factor is almost certainly weight,
>>>>> and therefore the licence a driver requires.
>>>>>
>>>> Dreams the bedding supplier presumably as mattresses and pillows are bulky
>>>> but relatively light weight items used to have a Mercedes Sprinter Fleet
>>>> that looked quite tall,
>>>>
>>>> <https://warehousenews.co.uk/2014/01/dreams-enables-6000-home-
>>>> deliveries-a-week-with-paragon-software/>
>>>
>>> While that might be the same Sprinter chassis-cab, it's not the kind of
>>> off-the-shelf Sprinter that van hire companies normally rent out.
>>>
>>> This is the one I hired (and would fit: "Vehicle Overall Height:
>>> 2590mm"): <https://bayfieldvehiclehire.co.uk/vehicle/long-wheel-base-
>>> van/>
>>>
>>> And this is a rather taller (3.4m**), but same general shape, which
>>> keeps bashing (not that hire company's example so far though):
>>> <https://bayfieldvehiclehire.co.uk/vehicle/luton/>
>>>
>>> That second one only has a legal payload of 1100kg, which is not many
>>> mattresses. Especially as it includes the weight of the fuel, driver and
>>> any passengers, and the wild-card which is the plywood lining.
>>>
>>>> The later ones I see now do not look quite as tall.
>>>
>>> Those 'Dreams' ones you picture have a custom-built back, and won't be
>>> driven by 'strangers' (such as one-day hirers), let alone relatively
>>> young strangers who might only have a 3.5t driving licence. It would be
>>> a *very* good idea to put the height of those Dreams vans on a sticker
>>> in the cab (even if it's less than 3m). And maybe they do need their
>>> drivers to have a 7.5t licence, if they anticipate filling them up with
>>> mattresses.
>>
>> I agree with what you are saying there but my reply was in answer to your
>> question
>>
>> “ Why would anyone want a van that was higher than the DPD one ?“. Using
>> “anyone “widens the scope considerably from just hirers .
>
> If you say so. After all, mattress delivery vans comprise such a high
> percentage of vehicles on the road. I suppose you see them every few
> minutes.
>
>> I chose Dreams because they are relatively common but there are others
>> whose need is for load volume or sized for specialist loads rather than
>> reaching a weight limit.
>
> And I don't think mattresses are a particularly good example, because
> they are sufficiently dense that a van like that will exceed its 3.5t
> (realistically 800kg payload) limit long before the volume limit.
>
>> One of the latter are glaziers who often have a standard bodied van but
>> whose dimensions have become higher and wider once the carrying framework
>> is attached. With Glass being heavy perhaps it is easy to overload with
>> smaller items carried within and the larger ones outside.
>
> And I would be astonished if the vans with glazing attached on the side
> were not accompanied by specific instructions to the drivers on what
> their height was.
>
>> The outside frames of course allow for some leeway when being sized as they
>> go downwards as well effectively giving the vehicle a very low if narrow
>> “floor”.
>>
>> Some examples here
>> <http://www.glazingvans.com/mercedessprinter.html>
>
> Precisely! With a size the external frame of 2.675m, you'd have to be
> super-stupid to think the top didn't exceed a 2.7m height limit. The
> bottom would have to be only 25cm (one inch) above the road surface and
> it's quite obvious from the photos it's much more than that. Looks like
> about SIX inches to me.
>
> Of course, that's about 150cm, added to the 2.7m signed at Ely comes to
> exactly the 2.85 if measures. So another prime candidate for a wedgie.
> (And a wedgie that would be avoided if the road surface was an inch
> lower).
>

I'm not sure what measuring system you use in Ely, but when I was learning
engineering, 25cm was close to 10", and 150cm was about 59". Not, of
course, that we used cm or inches: engineers use mm and metres.

In message <stdout$l26$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:12:29 on Wed, 2 Feb 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>> Some examples here
>>> <http://www.glazingvans.com/mercedessprinter.html>
>>
>> Precisely! With a size the external frame of 2.675m, you'd have to be
>> super-stupid to think the top didn't exceed a 2.7m height limit. The
>> bottom would have to be only 25cm (one inch) above the road surface and
>> it's quite obvious from the photos it's much more than that. Looks like
>> about SIX inches to me.
>>
>> Of course, that's about 150cm, added to the 2.7m signed at Ely comes
>> to exactly the 2.85m if measures. So another prime candidate for a
>> wedgie. (And a wedgie that would be avoided if the road surface was
>> an inch lower).
>
>I'm not sure what measuring system you use in Ely, but when I was learning
>engineering, 25cm was close to 10", and 150cm was about 59". Not, of
>course, that we used cm or inches: engineers use mm and metres.

OK, so you can't see past obvious typos.

Did you really look at the photos and think the bottom of the
glass-carrying frame was 59, rather than 5.9 (or colloquially six)
inches above the tarmac?

Get back under your bridge (did you see what I did there?)
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <stdout$l26$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:12:29 on Wed, 2 Feb 2022,
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>> Some examples here
>>>> <http://www.glazingvans.com/mercedessprinter.html>
>>>
>>> Precisely! With a size the external frame of 2.675m, you'd have to be
>>> super-stupid to think the top didn't exceed a 2.7m height limit. The
>>> bottom would have to be only 25cm (one inch) above the road surface and
>>> it's quite obvious from the photos it's much more than that. Looks like
>>> about SIX inches to me.
>>>
>>> Of course, that's about 150cm, added to the 2.7m signed at Ely comes
>>> to exactly the 2.85m if measures. So another prime candidate for a
>>> wedgie. (And a wedgie that would be avoided if the road surface was
>>> an inch lower).
>>
>> I'm not sure what measuring system you use in Ely, but when I was learning
>> engineering, 25cm was close to 10", and 150cm was about 59". Not, of
>> course, that we used cm or inches: engineers use mm and metres.
>
> OK, so you can't see past obvious typos.

It's not a typo if the error is made repeatedly, as you did. It indicates a
basic lack of understanding of measuring dimensions, which is the error you
are busily scolding others for. If you don't understand metric units, why
be so critical of others who are guilty of the same error?

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <j5v120Fcv5cU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:26:24 on Wed, 2 Feb
> 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <j5tb9kF36viU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:08:52 on Tue, 1 Feb
>>> 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <st907b$ssj$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:45:47 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>
>>>>> Thinking about this some more, there are often natural break-points in
>>>>> the height of things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would anyone want a van that was higher than the DPD one I pictured
>>>>> earlier? At this point the limiting factor is almost certainly weight,
>>>>> and therefore the licence a driver requires.
>>>>>
>>>> Dreams the bedding supplier presumably as mattresses and pillows are bulky
>>>> but relatively light weight items used to have a Mercedes Sprinter Fleet
>>>> that looked quite tall,
>>>>
>>>> <https://warehousenews.co.uk/2014/01/dreams-enables-6000-home-
>>>> deliveries-a-week-with-paragon-software/>
>>>
>>> While that might be the same Sprinter chassis-cab, it's not the kind of
>>> off-the-shelf Sprinter that van hire companies normally rent out.
>>>
>>> This is the one I hired (and would fit: "Vehicle Overall Height:
>>> 2590mm"): <https://bayfieldvehiclehire.co.uk/vehicle/long-wheel-base-
>>> van/>
>>>
>>> And this is a rather taller (3.4m**), but same general shape, which
>>> keeps bashing (not that hire company's example so far though):
>>> <https://bayfieldvehiclehire.co.uk/vehicle/luton/>
>>>
>>> That second one only has a legal payload of 1100kg, which is not many
>>> mattresses. Especially as it includes the weight of the fuel, driver and
>>> any passengers, and the wild-card which is the plywood lining.
>>>
>>>> The later ones I see now do not look quite as tall.
>>>
>>> Those 'Dreams' ones you picture have a custom-built back, and won't be
>>> driven by 'strangers' (such as one-day hirers), let alone relatively
>>> young strangers who might only have a 3.5t driving licence. It would be
>>> a *very* good idea to put the height of those Dreams vans on a sticker
>>> in the cab (even if it's less than 3m). And maybe they do need their
>>> drivers to have a 7.5t licence, if they anticipate filling them up with
>>> mattresses.
>>
>> I agree with what you are saying there but my reply was in answer to your
>> question
>>
>> “ Why would anyone want a van that was higher than the DPD one ?“. Using
>> “anyone “widens the scope considerably from just hirers .
>
> If you say so. After all, mattress delivery vans comprise such a high
> percentage of vehicles on the road. I suppose you see them every few
> minutes.
>
>> I chose Dreams because they are relatively common but there are others
>> whose need is for load volume or sized for specialist loads rather than
>> reaching a weight limit.
>
> And I don't think mattresses are a particularly good example, because
> they are sufficiently dense that a van like that will exceed its 3.5t
> (realistically 800kg payload) limit long before the volume limit.
>
>> One of the latter are glaziers who often have a standard bodied van but
>> whose dimensions have become higher and wider once the carrying framework
>> is attached. With Glass being heavy perhaps it is easy to overload with
>> smaller items carried within and the larger ones outside.
>
> And I would be astonished if the vans with glazing attached on the side
> were not accompanied by specific instructions to the drivers on what
> their height was.
>
>> The outside frames of course allow for some leeway when being sized as they
>> go downwards as well effectively giving the vehicle a very low if narrow
>> “floor”.
>>
>> Some examples here
>> <http://www.glazingvans.com/mercedessprinter.html>
>
> Precisely! With a size the external frame of 2.675m, you'd have to be
> super-stupid to think the top didn't exceed a 2.7m height limit. The
> bottom would have to be only 25cm (one inch) above the road surface and
> it's quite obvious from the photos it's much more than that. Looks like
> about SIX inches to me.
>
> Of course, that's about 150cm, added to the 2.7m signed at Ely comes to
> exactly the 2.85 if measures. So another prime candidate for a wedgie.
> (And a wedgie that would be avoided if the road surface was an inch
> lower).
>
> Nice try, but cigars in short supply!

I don’t know why you are waving around a rare cigar but the smoke from it
seems to have affected
your ability to handle conversion from imperial measurements to the metric
system and I don’t know
what your “Nice try” is crowing about , I simply gave glazing vans as
another example of users who require vans with the ability to carry items
higher than those that will fit in a standard model, its just that they are
unusual in the van is usually a std bodied one and it is the outside frame
that takes it higher.
What the diagrams on that link do not show is how much higher the frame
is than the the van which would have been useful , taking the pipe carrier
whose external dimensions vary but are usually around 5”/ 508mm diameter it
looks like the frame is about 3 and a bit of them above the roof so about
18” or 457mm. The lowest sprinter is 2530mm so add 457 and you get 2987mm
or 137mm/5” higher than your Ely “actual “ figure of 2.850.
Somewhat more than the 1 inch you reckoned the road would need lowering.

GH

On 02/02/2022 10:03, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <j5v120Fcv5cU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:26:24 on Wed, 2 Feb
> 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <j5tb9kF36viU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:08:52 on Tue, 1 Feb
>>> 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <st907b$ssj$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:45:47 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>
>>>>> Thinking about this some more, there are often natural break-points in
>>>>> the height of things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would anyone want a van that was higher than the DPD one I
>>>>> pictured
>>>>> earlier? At this point the limiting factor is almost certainly weight,
>>>>> and therefore the licence a driver requires.
>>>>>
>>>> Dreams the bedding supplier presumably as mattresses and pillows are
>>>> bulky
>>>> but relatively light weight items used to have a Mercedes Sprinter
>>>> Fleet
>>>> that looked quite tall,
>>>>
>>>> <https://warehousenews.co.uk/2014/01/dreams-enables-6000-home-
>>>> deliveries-a-week-with-paragon-software/>
>>>
>>> While that might be the same Sprinter chassis-cab, it's not the kind of
>>> off-the-shelf Sprinter that van hire companies normally rent out.
>>>
>>> This is the one I hired (and would fit: "Vehicle Overall Height:
>>> 2590mm"): <https://bayfieldvehiclehire.co.uk/vehicle/long-wheel-base-
>>> van/>
>>>
>>> And this is a rather taller (3.4m**), but same general shape, which
>>> keeps bashing (not that hire company's example so far though):
>>> <https://bayfieldvehiclehire.co.uk/vehicle/luton/>
>>>
>>> That second one only has a legal payload of 1100kg, which is not many
>>> mattresses. Especially as it includes the weight of the fuel, driver and
>>> any passengers, and the wild-card which is the plywood lining.
>>>
>>>> The later ones I see now do not look quite as tall.
>>>
>>> Those 'Dreams' ones you picture have a custom-built back, and won't be
>>> driven by 'strangers' (such as one-day hirers), let alone relatively
>>> young strangers who might only have a 3.5t driving licence. It would be
>>> a *very* good idea to put the height of those Dreams vans on a sticker
>>> in the cab (even if it's less than 3m). And maybe they do need their
>>> drivers to have a 7.5t licence, if they anticipate filling them up with
>>> mattresses.
>>
>> I agree with what you are saying there but my reply was in answer to your
>> question
>>
>> “ Why would anyone want a van that was higher than the DPD one ?“. Using
>> “anyone “widens the scope considerably from just hirers .
>
> If you say so. After all, mattress delivery vans comprise such a high
> percentage of vehicles on the road. I suppose you see them every few
> minutes.
>
>> I chose Dreams because they are relatively common but there are others
>> whose need is for load volume  or sized for specialist loads  rather than
>> reaching a weight limit.
>
> And I don't think mattresses are a particularly good example, because
> they are sufficiently dense that a van like that will exceed its 3.5t
> (realistically 800kg payload) limit long before the volume limit.
>
>> One of the latter are glaziers who often have a standard bodied van but
>> whose dimensions have become  higher and wider once the carrying
>> framework
>> is attached. With Glass being heavy perhaps it is easy to overload with
>> smaller items carried within and the larger ones outside.
>
> And I would be astonished if the vans with glazing attached on the side
> were not accompanied by specific instructions to the drivers on what
> their height was.
>

Double decker bus drivers have specific instructions on what height
their vehicle is.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <stdroj$9mj$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:00:19 on Wed, 2 Feb 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>> Precisely! With a size the external frame of 2.675m, you'd have to be
>>>> super-stupid to think the top didn't exceed a 2.7m height limit. The
>>>> bottom would have to be only 25cm (one inch) above the road surface and
>>>> it's quite obvious from the photos it's much more than that. Looks like
>>>> about SIX inches to me.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, that's about 150cm, added to the 2.7m signed at Ely comes
>>>> to exactly the 2.85m if measures. So another prime candidate for a
>>>> wedgie. (And a wedgie that would be avoided if the road surface was
>>>> an inch lower).
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what measuring system you use in Ely, but when I was learning
>>> engineering, 25cm was close to 10", and 150cm was about 59". Not, of
>>> course, that we used cm or inches: engineers use mm and metres.
>>
>> OK, so you can't see past obvious typos.
>
>It's not a typo if the error is made repeatedly, as you did. It indicates a
>basic lack of understanding of measuring dimensions, which is the error you
>are busily scolding others for. If you don't understand metric units, why
>be so critical of others who are guilty of the same error?

You know perfectly well what dimensions I meant. Now answer the
underlying issue.

Or is this YOUR really-pointless argument for today?
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 13:13:17 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <stdroj$9mj$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:00:19 on Wed, 2 Feb 2022,
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>>> Precisely! With a size the external frame of 2.675m, you'd have to be
>>>>> super-stupid to think the top didn't exceed a 2.7m height limit. The
>>>>> bottom would have to be only 25cm (one inch) above the road surface and
>>>>> it's quite obvious from the photos it's much more than that. Looks like
>>>>> about SIX inches to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, that's about 150cm, added to the 2.7m signed at Ely comes
>>>>> to exactly the 2.85m if measures. So another prime candidate for a
>>>>> wedgie. (And a wedgie that would be avoided if the road surface was
>>>>> an inch lower).
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what measuring system you use in Ely, but when I was learning
>>>> engineering, 25cm was close to 10", and 150cm was about 59". Not, of
>>>> course, that we used cm or inches: engineers use mm and metres.
>>>
>>> OK, so you can't see past obvious typos.
>>
>>It's not a typo if the error is made repeatedly, as you did. It indicates a
>>basic lack of understanding of measuring dimensions, which is the error you
>>are busily scolding others for. If you don't understand metric units, why
>>be so critical of others who are guilty of the same error?
>
>You know perfectly well what dimensions I meant. Now answer the
>underlying issue.

The underlying issue is that some people don't understand metric dimensions, as you have so clearly illustrated.

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 13:09:36 +0000, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 02/02/2022 10:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <j5v120Fcv5cU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:26:24 on Wed, 2 Feb
>> 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <j5tb9kF36viU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:08:52 on Tue, 1 Feb
>>>> 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <st907b$ssj$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:45:47 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thinking about this some more, there are often natural break-points in
>>>>>> the height of things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would anyone want a van that was higher than the DPD one I
>>>>>> pictured
>>>>>> earlier? At this point the limiting factor is almost certainly weight,
>>>>>> and therefore the licence a driver requires.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Dreams the bedding supplier presumably as mattresses and pillows are
>>>>> bulky
>>>>> but relatively light weight items used to have a Mercedes Sprinter
>>>>> Fleet
>>>>> that looked quite tall,
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://warehousenews.co.uk/2014/01/dreams-enables-6000-home-
>>>>> deliveries-a-week-with-paragon-software/>
>>>>
>>>> While that might be the same Sprinter chassis-cab, it's not the kind of
>>>> off-the-shelf Sprinter that van hire companies normally rent out.
>>>>
>>>> This is the one I hired (and would fit: "Vehicle Overall Height:
>>>> 2590mm"): <https://bayfieldvehiclehire.co.uk/vehicle/long-wheel-base-
>>>> van/>
>>>>
>>>> And this is a rather taller (3.4m**), but same general shape, which
>>>> keeps bashing (not that hire company's example so far though):
>>>> <https://bayfieldvehiclehire.co.uk/vehicle/luton/>
>>>>
>>>> That second one only has a legal payload of 1100kg, which is not many
>>>> mattresses. Especially as it includes the weight of the fuel, driver and
>>>> any passengers, and the wild-card which is the plywood lining.
>>>>
>>>>> The later ones I see now do not look quite as tall.
>>>>
>>>> Those 'Dreams' ones you picture have a custom-built back, and won't be
>>>> driven by 'strangers' (such as one-day hirers), let alone relatively
>>>> young strangers who might only have a 3.5t driving licence. It would be
>>>> a *very* good idea to put the height of those Dreams vans on a sticker
>>>> in the cab (even if it's less than 3m). And maybe they do need their
>>>> drivers to have a 7.5t licence, if they anticipate filling them up with
>>>> mattresses.
>>>
>>> I agree with what you are saying there but my reply was in answer to your
>>> question
>>>
>>> “ Why would anyone want a van that was higher than the DPD one ?“. Using
>>> “anyone “widens the scope considerably from just hirers .
>>
>> If you say so. After all, mattress delivery vans comprise such a high
>> percentage of vehicles on the road. I suppose you see them every few
>> minutes.
>>
>>> I chose Dreams because they are relatively common but there are others
>>> whose need is for load volume  or sized for specialist loads  rather than
>>> reaching a weight limit.
>>
>> And I don't think mattresses are a particularly good example, because
>> they are sufficiently dense that a van like that will exceed its 3.5t
>> (realistically 800kg payload) limit long before the volume limit.
>>
>>> One of the latter are glaziers who often have a standard bodied van but
>>> whose dimensions have become  higher and wider once the carrying
>>> framework
>>> is attached. With Glass being heavy perhaps it is easy to overload with
>>> smaller items carried within and the larger ones outside.
>>
>> And I would be astonished if the vans with glazing attached on the side
>> were not accompanied by specific instructions to the drivers on what
>> their height was.
>>
>
>Double decker bus drivers have specific instructions on what height
>their vehicle is.

The problem there is that they forget they're driving a double-decker.

In message <j5vb3lFeqrbU1@mid.individual.net>, at 12:17:57 on Wed, 2 Feb
2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <j5v120Fcv5cU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:26:24 on Wed, 2 Feb
>> 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <j5tb9kF36viU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:08:52 on Tue, 1 Feb
>>>> 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <st907b$ssj$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:45:47 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thinking about this some more, there are often natural break-points in
>>>>>> the height of things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would anyone want a van that was higher than the DPD one I pictured
>>>>>> earlier? At this point the limiting factor is almost certainly weight,
>>>>>> and therefore the licence a driver requires.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Dreams the bedding supplier presumably as mattresses and pillows are bulky
>>>>> but relatively light weight items used to have a Mercedes Sprinter Fleet
>>>>> that looked quite tall,
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://warehousenews.co.uk/2014/01/dreams-enables-6000-home-
>>>>> deliveries-a-week-with-paragon-software/>
>>>>
>>>> While that might be the same Sprinter chassis-cab, it's not the kind of
>>>> off-the-shelf Sprinter that van hire companies normally rent out.
>>>>
>>>> This is the one I hired (and would fit: "Vehicle Overall Height:
>>>> 2590mm"): <https://bayfieldvehiclehire.co.uk/vehicle/long-wheel-base-
>>>> van/>
>>>>
>>>> And this is a rather taller (3.4m**), but same general shape, which
>>>> keeps bashing (not that hire company's example so far though):
>>>> <https://bayfieldvehiclehire.co.uk/vehicle/luton/>
>>>>
>>>> That second one only has a legal payload of 1100kg, which is not many
>>>> mattresses. Especially as it includes the weight of the fuel, driver and
>>>> any passengers, and the wild-card which is the plywood lining.
>>>>
>>>>> The later ones I see now do not look quite as tall.
>>>>
>>>> Those 'Dreams' ones you picture have a custom-built back, and won't be
>>>> driven by 'strangers' (such as one-day hirers), let alone relatively
>>>> young strangers who might only have a 3.5t driving licence. It would be
>>>> a *very* good idea to put the height of those Dreams vans on a sticker
>>>> in the cab (even if it's less than 3m). And maybe they do need their
>>>> drivers to have a 7.5t licence, if they anticipate filling them up with
>>>> mattresses.
>>>
>>> I agree with what you are saying there but my reply was in answer to your
>>> question
>>>
>>> “ Why would anyone want a van that was higher than the DPD one ?“. Using
>>> “anyone “widens the scope considerably from just hirers .
>>
>> If you say so. After all, mattress delivery vans comprise such a high
>> percentage of vehicles on the road. I suppose you see them every few
>> minutes.
>>
>>> I chose Dreams because they are relatively common but there are others
>>> whose need is for load volume or sized for specialist loads rather than
>>> reaching a weight limit.
>>
>> And I don't think mattresses are a particularly good example, because
>> they are sufficiently dense that a van like that will exceed its 3.5t
>> (realistically 800kg payload) limit long before the volume limit.
>>
>>> One of the latter are glaziers who often have a standard bodied van but
>>> whose dimensions have become higher and wider once the carrying framework
>>> is attached. With Glass being heavy perhaps it is easy to overload with
>>> smaller items carried within and the larger ones outside.
>>
>> And I would be astonished if the vans with glazing attached on the side
>> were not accompanied by specific instructions to the drivers on what
>> their height was.
>>
>>> The outside frames of course allow for some leeway when being sized as they
>>> go downwards as well effectively giving the vehicle a very low if narrow
>>> “floor”.
>>>
>>> Some examples here
>>> <http://www.glazingvans.com/mercedessprinter.html>
>>
>> Precisely! With a size the external frame of 2.675m, you'd have to be
>> super-stupid to think the top didn't exceed a 2.7m height limit. The
>> bottom would have to be only 25cm (one inch) above the road surface and
>> it's quite obvious from the photos it's much more than that. Looks like
>> about SIX inches to me.
>>
>> Of course, that's about 150cm, added to the 2.7m signed at Ely comes to
>> exactly the 2.85 if measures. So another prime candidate for a wedgie.
>> (And a wedgie that would be avoided if the road surface was an inch
>> lower).
>>
>> Nice try, but cigars in short supply!
>
>I don’t know why you are waving around a rare cigar but the smoke
>from it seems to have affected your ability to handle conversion from
>imperial measurements to the metric system and I don’t know what your
>“Nice try” is crowing about

That glazing vans are something which should set the policy for railway
bridge heights/signage.

>, I simply gave glazing vans as another example of users who require
>vans with the ability to carry items higher than those that will fit in
>a standard model, its just that they are unusual in the van is usually
>a std bodied one and it is the outside frame that takes it higher.

And the counter-argument is that as a result the driver will almost
certainly have been appraised of the clearnce required.

>What the diagrams on that link do not show is how much higher the frame
>is than the the van which would have been useful , taking the pipe carrier
>whose external dimensions vary but are usually around 5”/ 508mm diameter it
>looks like the frame is about 3 and a bit of them above the roof so about
>18” or 457mm. The lowest sprinter is 2530mm so add 457 and you get 2987mm
>or 137mm/5” higher than your Ely “actual “ figure of 2.850.
>Somewhat more than the 1 inch you reckoned the road would need lowering.

Doesn't matter, because until I see at least a dozen such glazing vans
having come to grief there, it's a just an extreme corner case.
--
Roland Perry

In message <stdvqg$bkp$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:09:36 on Wed, 2 Feb 2022,
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>>I would be astonished if the vans with glazing attached on the side
>>were not accompanied by specific instructions to the drivers on what
>>their height was.
>
>Double decker bus drivers have specific instructions on what height
>their vehicle is.

If they have the same rules as goods vehicles, that would be a sticker
in the cab.

But double decker buses coming to grief are almost always (no doubt
there's one-in-a-decade counter-example) because the driver forgot and
drove into a bridge that was at least a foot too low, rather than
expecting his double-decker to get through a bridge that was in fact
just half an inch too low.
--
Roland Perry

In message <205lvg17dl8242pg3s00uee7pdk17ll8c9@4ax.com>, at 14:24:56 on
Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 13:13:17 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <stdroj$9mj$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:00:19 on Wed, 2 Feb 2022,
>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>>> Precisely! With a size the external frame of 2.675m, you'd have to be
>>>>>> super-stupid to think the top didn't exceed a 2.7m height limit. The
>>>>>> bottom would have to be only 25cm (one inch) above the road surface and
>>>>>> it's quite obvious from the photos it's much more than that. Looks like
>>>>>> about SIX inches to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, that's about 150cm, added to the 2.7m signed at Ely comes
>>>>>> to exactly the 2.85m if measures. So another prime candidate for a
>>>>>> wedgie. (And a wedgie that would be avoided if the road surface was
>>>>>> an inch lower).
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure what measuring system you use in Ely, but when I was learning
>>>>> engineering, 25cm was close to 10", and 150cm was about 59". Not, of
>>>>> course, that we used cm or inches: engineers use mm and metres.
>>>>
>>>> OK, so you can't see past obvious typos.
>>>
>>>It's not a typo if the error is made repeatedly, as you did. It indicates a
>>>basic lack of understanding of measuring dimensions, which is the error you
>>>are busily scolding others for. If you don't understand metric units, why
>>>be so critical of others who are guilty of the same error?
>>
>>You know perfectly well what dimensions I meant. Now answer the
>>underlying issue.
>
>The underlying issue is that some people don't understand metric
>dimensions, as you have so clearly illustrated.

Not at all, I doubt any drivers seeing a 2.7m height restriction would
mistakenly assume that's actually 0.27m (limbo time) or 27m (no bridge
that high would have a warning sign).
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:41:00 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <205lvg17dl8242pg3s00uee7pdk17ll8c9@4ax.com>, at 14:24:56 on
>Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 13:13:17 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <stdroj$9mj$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:00:19 on Wed, 2 Feb 2022,
>>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>>> Precisely! With a size the external frame of 2.675m, you'd have to be
>>>>>>> super-stupid to think the top didn't exceed a 2.7m height limit. The
>>>>>>> bottom would have to be only 25cm (one inch) above the road surface and
>>>>>>> it's quite obvious from the photos it's much more than that. Looks like
>>>>>>> about SIX inches to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, that's about 150cm, added to the 2.7m signed at Ely comes
>>>>>>> to exactly the 2.85m if measures. So another prime candidate for a
>>>>>>> wedgie. (And a wedgie that would be avoided if the road surface was
>>>>>>> an inch lower).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure what measuring system you use in Ely, but when I was learning
>>>>>> engineering, 25cm was close to 10", and 150cm was about 59". Not, of
>>>>>> course, that we used cm or inches: engineers use mm and metres.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, so you can't see past obvious typos.
>>>>
>>>>It's not a typo if the error is made repeatedly, as you did. It indicates a
>>>>basic lack of understanding of measuring dimensions, which is the error you
>>>>are busily scolding others for. If you don't understand metric units, why
>>>>be so critical of others who are guilty of the same error?
>>>
>>>You know perfectly well what dimensions I meant. Now answer the
>>>underlying issue.
>>
>>The underlying issue is that some people don't understand metric
>>dimensions, as you have so clearly illustrated.
>
>Not at all, I doubt any drivers seeing a 2.7m height restriction would
>mistakenly assume that's actually 0.27m (limbo time) or 27m (no bridge
>that high would have a warning sign).

They probably still think in old measures, like you clearly do, and can't relate to metric measures, just as you have
demonstrated.

On 02/02/2022 14:25, Recliner wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 13:09:36 +0000, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 02/02/2022 10:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <j5v120Fcv5cU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:26:24 on Wed, 2 Feb
>>> 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <j5tb9kF36viU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:08:52 on Tue, 1 Feb
>>>>> 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <st907b$ssj$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:45:47 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thinking about this some more, there are often natural break-points in
>>>>>>> the height of things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would anyone want a van that was higher than the DPD one I
>>>>>>> pictured
>>>>>>> earlier? At this point the limiting factor is almost certainly weight,
>>>>>>> and therefore the licence a driver requires.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dreams the bedding supplier presumably as mattresses and pillows are
>>>>>> bulky
>>>>>> but relatively light weight items used to have a Mercedes Sprinter
>>>>>> Fleet
>>>>>> that looked quite tall,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://warehousenews.co.uk/2014/01/dreams-enables-6000-home-
>>>>>> deliveries-a-week-with-paragon-software/>
>>>>>
>>>>> While that might be the same Sprinter chassis-cab, it's not the kind of
>>>>> off-the-shelf Sprinter that van hire companies normally rent out.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the one I hired (and would fit: "Vehicle Overall Height:
>>>>> 2590mm"): <https://bayfieldvehiclehire.co.uk/vehicle/long-wheel-base-
>>>>> van/>
>>>>>
>>>>> And this is a rather taller (3.4m**), but same general shape, which
>>>>> keeps bashing (not that hire company's example so far though):
>>>>> <https://bayfieldvehiclehire.co.uk/vehicle/luton/>
>>>>>
>>>>> That second one only has a legal payload of 1100kg, which is not many
>>>>> mattresses. Especially as it includes the weight of the fuel, driver and
>>>>> any passengers, and the wild-card which is the plywood lining.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The later ones I see now do not look quite as tall.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those 'Dreams' ones you picture have a custom-built back, and won't be
>>>>> driven by 'strangers' (such as one-day hirers), let alone relatively
>>>>> young strangers who might only have a 3.5t driving licence. It would be
>>>>> a *very* good idea to put the height of those Dreams vans on a sticker
>>>>> in the cab (even if it's less than 3m). And maybe they do need their
>>>>> drivers to have a 7.5t licence, if they anticipate filling them up with
>>>>> mattresses.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with what you are saying there but my reply was in answer to your
>>>> question
>>>>
>>>> “ Why would anyone want a van that was higher than the DPD one ?“. Using
>>>> “anyone “widens the scope considerably from just hirers .
>>>
>>> If you say so. After all, mattress delivery vans comprise such a high
>>> percentage of vehicles on the road. I suppose you see them every few
>>> minutes.
>>>
>>>> I chose Dreams because they are relatively common but there are others
>>>> whose need is for load volume  or sized for specialist loads  rather than
>>>> reaching a weight limit.
>>>
>>> And I don't think mattresses are a particularly good example, because
>>> they are sufficiently dense that a van like that will exceed its 3.5t
>>> (realistically 800kg payload) limit long before the volume limit.
>>>
>>>> One of the latter are glaziers who often have a standard bodied van but
>>>> whose dimensions have become  higher and wider once the carrying
>>>> framework
>>>> is attached. With Glass being heavy perhaps it is easy to overload with
>>>> smaller items carried within and the larger ones outside.
>>>
>>> And I would be astonished if the vans with glazing attached on the side
>>> were not accompanied by specific instructions to the drivers on what
>>> their height was.
>>>
>>
>> Double decker bus drivers have specific instructions on what height
>> their vehicle is.
>
> The problem there is that they forget they're driving a double-decker.

In their case they have the height posted in the cab as a reminder.
Still doesn't help.

One possible answer is a camera system, similar to the speed limit
recognition system now fitted in many cars, that recognises height limit
signs and flashes a warning when it detects one. Make it mandatory on
all vehicles over 2 metres.[1]

[1] Or capable of being over 2 metres high in the case of flat beds.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <ste9fm$spq$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:54:30 on Wed, 2 Feb 2022,
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>>> Double decker bus drivers have specific instructions on what height
>>> their vehicle is.

>> The problem there is that they forget they're driving a
>>double-decker.
>
>In their case they have the height posted in the cab as a reminder.
>Still doesn't help.
>
>One possible answer is a camera system, similar to the speed limit
>recognition system now fitted in many cars, that recognises height
>limit signs and flashes a warning when it detects one. Make it
>mandatory on all vehicles over 2 metres.[1]
>
>[1] Or capable of being over 2 metres high in the case of flat beds.

I don't think that a 2m limit would get past a Regulatory Impact(sic)
Assessment, especially in an era that's trying (at least nominally) to
reduce red tape. That's why I think the current in-cab rule is 3m,
because it excludes the vast majority of vans from its remit.

All of which makes it even more of a tragedy (in the original Greek
sense) that the Ely underpass is just a shade under 3m.
--
Roland Perry

On 02/02/2022 16:38, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ste9fm$spq$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:54:30 on Wed, 2 Feb 2022,
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>> Double decker bus drivers have specific instructions on what height
>>>> their vehicle is.
>
>>>  The problem there is that they forget they're driving a double-decker.
>>
>> In their case they have the height posted in the cab as a reminder.
>> Still doesn't help.
>>
>> One possible answer is a camera system, similar to the speed limit
>> recognition system now fitted in many cars, that recognises height
>> limit signs and flashes a warning when it detects one. Make it
>> mandatory on all vehicles over 2 metres.[1]
>>
>> [1] Or capable of being over 2 metres high in the case of flat beds.
>
> I don't think that a 2m limit would get past a Regulatory Impact(sic)
> Assessment, especially in an era that's trying (at least nominally) to
> reduce red tape. That's why I think the current in-cab rule is 3m,
> because it excludes the vast majority of vans from its remit.
>
> All of which makes it even more of a tragedy (in the original Greek
> sense) that the Ely underpass is just a shade under 3m.
Typo, I meant 3m

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 08:07:19 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

<snip>
>As for an absence of vehicles in the 2.88m-3m range that's again
>something which can be observed. I don't know if there's a regulatory
>reason, but if we think about engine sizes, there are huge numbers of
>cars with 1098cc engines and very few 1101-1190 (the next increment
>typically being 1198).
>
OTTOMH a 1098 engine was usually an engine effectively designed as
1100 with enough metal to allow re-boring to the nominal size (and
occasionally beyond if it lasted that long).
<snip.

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 11:46:45 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <st907b$ssj$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:45:47 on Mon, 31 Jan
>2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 31/01/2022 15:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>>> They know they are close to the indicated bridge height, but they
>>>>> reckon there's probably a safety margin built in. So, build in a
>>>>> bigger safety margin, and it will all be fine!
>>>>
>>>> Is 15cm not sufficient?
>>>
>>> You want to spend say £1m lowering the roadway in order to make the
>>> margin 18cm. :)
>>>
>>> You have no evidence that it will work. Yes, I know that 9 out of 10
>>> collisions were caused by drivers only misjudging by a couple of cms,
>>> but you have no evidence that they won't continue to do so after the
>>> road is expensively lowered.
>>
>>I’ve tried to take this up with Roland before but he insists, without much
>>in the way of evidence except that the vans that are a couple of inches too
>>tall are the ones that hit the bridge, that there is a break point in the
>>distribution of van heights at around 2.85.
>
>Thinking about this some more, there are often natural break-points in
>the height of things.
>
>Apart from the one in Harry Potter, why are there no triple-decker
>buses, for example. Or very few SUVs taller than 2m (the bulkiest I can
>think of, off-hand, is the Cayenne, and that's only 1.69m tall,
>noticeably less than the Disco 2 which is 1.95m).
>
>Why would anyone want a van that was higher than the DPD one I pictured
>earlier? At this point the limiting factor is almost certainly weight,
>and therefore the licence a driver requires.
>
>Last year I hired a LWB van (I wanted SWB, but it was all they had
>available), and while it was low enough to have got through the Ely
>underpass, I calculated that if the floor was covered in just one layer
>of bags-of-construction-stuff (be that gravel, stones, cement or sand)
>it would have reached its maximum weight. Unless there's a huge market
>for vans to be used transporting lumps of expanded polystyrene, they
>simply don't need to be any taller.
>
>There will be a few custom built vehicles, such as emergency ambulances
>and Winnebagos with aircon units on the roof, that will be above 2.87m
>(without being next-tier 7.5t HGVs in their own right) but drivers of
>those may perhaps be more alert to their surroundings as a result. And
>they aren't nearly as common as "white vans" anyway.
>
>In other news, something I learned last year is that the main
>constraining factor on an emergency ambulance's design, is ensuring
>that if there's an optional tail-lift added (to the basic design) it
>doesn't tip it into the next category of driving licence. We are talking
>a few tens of kilos here, not hundreds.
>
>Apparently there's no legislation to make an exception, unlike that
>which says that when appropriate they can exceed the speed limit and
>run red traffic lights.
>
There are already exemptions for driving a vehicle which would
otherwise be outwith the limits of your licence :-
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/891798/inf52-large-vehicles-you-can-drive-using-your-car-or-lorry-licence.pdf
[tinyurl.com/5n845dab - INF52 Goods vehicles you can drive with a full
car (category B) licence] and also exemptions applicable to military
drivers.

In past times there was a Secretary of State's exemption for motor
cyclists carrying blood under "blue light" conditions which has
morphed into statutory allowance.

The same type of SoS's permission for marginally overweight (but
type-approved) ambulances driven by specified persons (e.g. NHS/SJA/
SAA/BRC) might be appropriate when taking into account that suitable
training is required before drivers can travel under "blue light"
conditions.
One comparable exemption in the above leaflet is +0.75 tonnes in
excess of 3.5t for a minibus which has "any specialist equipment for
carrying disabled passengers". The limit for the driver is 21y or
over, B licensed for 2y, and is a volunteer.
<snip>

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 14:36:51 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <stbf4g$5av$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:12:32 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022,
>MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>
>>On 01/02/2022 11:46, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>> Apparently there's no legislation to make an exception, unlike that
>>> which says that when appropriate they can exceed the speed limit and
>>> run red traffic lights.
>>
>>Some regulations for ambulances are quite strict, more so than the
>>police. Ambulances can't break speed limits and cross red lights during
>>training unlike the police who can drive around like maniacs (and do)
>>and say they are practising.
>
>I agree that "when appropriate" is a bit awkward to interpret when
>training. On one hand, perhaps only genuine emergencies are appropriate,
>on the other hand, if they've never practised it, what could possibly go
>wrong on their first emergency outing?
>
>>I believe they
>
>??Police drivers practising, or something else??
>
>>cannot give permission for a non-emergency vehicle do things like going
>>through a red light to allow an ambulance through which is why the turn
>>off sirens at red lights.
>
>I thought any police officer in uniform[1] could do that, regardless of
>what else they were doing at the time, practising or otherwise.
>
>In other news, I was in Cambridge last week and an ambulance coming the
>other way at a junction got stuck. (There was nothing I could have done
>to help). In my view they should have gone the wrong side of a traffic
>island, especially as all the other traffic had stopped.
>
>The problem was a car driver who had ignored the Highway Code and no
>doubt with good intent, mounted the pavement to let them pass. (The HC
>specifically says not to do this). But they hadn't quite cleared enough
>of the road, so had to drive a bit further forward and sideways.
>
>Not sure what they would be recommended to do as an alternative.
>
>Stopping on the road (like everyone else had) would have blocked it even
>more, and it takes nerves of steel to carry on driving with an ambulance
>on blues and twos on your tail, until you get to a bit of road with
>sufficient clearance for them to overtake. Especially as you might soon
>get blocked by another well-meaning person who has stopped (rinse and
>repeat).
>
>[1] Is there even caselaw that the policeman has to be on-site, what if
> you phoned a friend who was a policeman, checked he had his uniform
> on, explained the situation and asked him to tell you to pass the
> red light? Or maybe they are trained to always say "no".
>
I have been aware of a driver being told over the radio that they have
permission/instruction to ignore a banned turn or similar; possibly
jocular but you never know what sort of clown might have wasted police
time with a complaint about them doing so previously. AFAIAA the
person giving such an instruction only has to be a "constable in
uniform" but without considering (originally in 1930 or earlier) they
might not be there in person.

On 02/02/2022 23:25, Charles Ellson wrote:
> I have been aware of a driver being told over the radio that they have
> permission/instruction to ignore a banned turn or similar; possibly
> jocular but you never know what sort of clown might have wasted police
> time with a complaint about them doing so previously. AFAIAA the
> person giving such an instruction only has to be a "constable in
> uniform" but without considering (originally in 1930 or earlier) they
> might not be there in person.

An ex-police friend told me once he would sometimes get a call from EOD
vehicles on the way to an incident, requesting permission to use the
hard shoulder on the motorway (before the law was changed).

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:48:55 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <stat2e$9g0$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:14 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022,
>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <st8v6q$59j$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:28:27 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>> 2022, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>>>> On 31/01/2022 15:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> They know they are close to the indicated bridge height, but they
>>>>>> reckon there's probably a safety margin built in. So, build in a
>>>>>> bigger safety margin, and it will all be fine!
>>>
>>>>> Is 15cm not sufficient?
>>>>
>>>> You want to spend say £1m lowering the roadway in order to make the
>>>> margin 18cm. :)
>>>
>>> You have no evidence it would cost that much.
>>>
>>>> You have no evidence that it will work.
>>>
>>> I think I have plenty.
>>>
>>>> Yes, I know that 9 out of 10 collisions were caused by drivers only
>>>> misjudging by a couple of cms,
>>>
>>> They should not be judging the height on-the-fLy as they approach, when
>>> their vehicle is *at least* 15cm taller than the number on the signage.
>>>
>>>> but you have no evidence that they won't continue to do so
>>>
>>> The evidence for that is the lack of any candidate vehicles whose height
>>> is in that inch-higher-then-the-current-victims bracket.
>>>
>>>> after the road is expensively lowered.
>>>
>>> Network Rail need to tone down the shroud-waving and decide if a simple
>>> remedy in this instance is cost-effective.
>>
>>Is lowering the road a Network Rail cost or a local authority/highways
>>responsibility?
>
>I expect it's on railway land, but they are happy to have the Highways
>Authority maintain it, while simultaneously grumbling about the
>easily-designed-out bridge bashes.
>
The road will fairly certainly be highway land, if only the surface.
Unless there is a significant cost knocking on to the local authority
then I would not expect (change hats if necessary) the highway
authority to take an interest in spending large amounts of money on
anything other than signage.

In message <MPG.3c634baec6d9c6ae9897b2@news.eternal-september.org>, at
13:53:21 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022, John Aldridge <jpsa@cantab.net> remarked:
>In article <TI+TRkhL+N+hFAt4@perry.uk>, roland@perry.co.uk says...
>>
>> In message <MPG.3c622b5393eaab99897b1@news.eternal-september.org>, at
>> 17:23:07 on Mon, 31 Jan 2022, John Aldridge <jpsa@cantab.net> remarked:
>> >In article <EEIWyFZch$9hFA2Q@perry.uk>, roland@perry.co.uk says...
>> >>
>> >> In message <MPG.3c61f16aca6a23da9897b0@news.eternal-september.org>, at
>> >> 13:15:57 on Mon, 31 Jan 2022, John Aldridge <jpsa@cantab.net> remarked:
>> >>
>> >> >I propose a rule: there should be no more than one sign every 5 seconds
>> >> >of driving time at the speed limit in force. If you genuinely can't
>> >> >remove enough superfluous signs to meet that limit, then the speed limit
>> >> >has to be reduced.
>> >>
>> >> In an area like the town-side of Ely Station, that would mean a speed
>> >> limit of about 5mph, because there's so much going on.
>> >
>> >So be it, then. I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to read,
>> >understand, and deduce the consequences for them, of a sign much more
>> >often than that.
>>
>> And what about the three or four previous signs they've seen, further
>> away on the approach roads, where they are the only one?
>>
>> This montage also gives an idea of the size (big as the back of an HGV).
>>
>> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/A142-signage.jpg
>>
>> A good five seconds to the next and also to the one after that:
>>
>> https://goo.gl/maps/GGV8FEW2TYsrUbJs8
>
>I agree that the sign in this image is pretty unmissable.
>
>But I think the issue is only partly about sign overload in a specific
>location: it's also that the current sign overload is an efficient way
>of training drivers not to notice signs at all.

I agree that sign overload is a significant problem. But you can't
accuse every sign as being part of that.

But what is a traffic engineer supposed to do when a side-road has four
more restrictions on it than the main road?

https://goo.gl/maps/RY6d8TmX7aSXFTkD6

20mph, One Way, Clearway, 7.5ton

Let alone the helpful indication that it's the route to the station.

While I have every sympathy for hard-pressed local traders, the "cash
paid for gold" sign is unlawful and the council should be given
increased powers to take it away and crush it. As for the 2m-covid sign,
maybe some slack for the pandemic - and of course it's aimed at
pedestrians not drivers, just like the adjacent red/green man signage.

>> Would you recommend a 15mph speed limit here, so drivers can take in and
>> comprehend the five signs (recursively, two of which are "30") and the
>> two backs of signs?
>>
>> https://goo.gl/maps/yQTgxYD5X7CUfCPq7
>
>My suggestion isn't fleshed out in enough detail to answer questions
>like this, but I think the identical signs on both signs of the road
>perhaps should only count once. And I'm not arguing that the backs of
>signs count (though I noticed that someone else did).
>
>I do think it's a pity that the 30 limit and the keep left sign are in
>the same place, and I can just about imagine not noticing the former
>because I was concentrating on not colliding with the island.

There's also the streetlighting from there forward, which is well known
to indicate (in the absence of contradictory repeaters) a 30mph limit.

>> And do these two illegal signs change the equation at all?
>>
>> https://goo.gl/maps/dPBxwJNPRU17BW6Z7
>
>Yes. Take the bloody things down. They're a distraction when there's
>already two important things to worry about (and a third just a bit
>further down the road).

Unfortunately, the way the law is at the moment the council is probably
guilty of criminal damage/theft if it does so. The solution (if they had
the time and energy to abstract from more important matters) is to put
up a YET ANOTHER sign giving notice that unless the person who erected
them removes them in 7 days the council will do so, and the sign owner
will then have 14 days to claim it back from wherever the council stored
it.

>> [It's a separate debate, but I would support giving the local authority
>> powers to remove such illegal signs in the same way they'd clear up
>> litter. But currently it doesn't work like that.]
>
>I didn't even know they were illegal. But more power to your elbow.

Mainly under planning permission for advertising posters I think, but
there's a separate law about unapproved signage intended to give
directions to motorists (eg people in a village putting up pirate 30mph
speed limit signs when it's legally 40mph).

>> In other news, how many signs here, and what speed limit would you
>> impose. If the 30mph speed limit indicated only two were allowed, which
>> of the others would you remove? https://goo.gl/maps/g4KpG74rM3TFf6ym8
>
>Is the "Level Crossing Ahead Closed" sign really still useful enough to
>warrant its distraction value?

That's aimed at a completely different audience, the HGV drivers who
have a memory (or a statnav) that ahead is a level crossing they could
use. And when finding it closed have to do a u-turn, holding up the
traffic and churning up the road surface.

Arguably, wording such as "No through road ahead for HGVs" would be just
as useful, albeit vaguer as to why.

It's also more recent than the height restriction signage, because after
a year, people got fed up with all those u-turning HGVs and decided
"something must be done".

>And the picture of Ely cathedral and the Free Parking signs don't help
>either.

That was there first (for a decade or more). Most towns have signage at
the boundary, declaring their name, perhaps who they are twinned with,
and often a strapline like "Rural Capital of Food" (That's Melton
Mowbray). The Ely slogan happens to be the free parking.

Colchester: <https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/resources/images/2385210/>

But drivers should realise such signs don't have instructions about road
traffic matters (eg "Wetwang, Moist Penis capital of Yorkshire, twinned
with Fucking Austria, and by the way there's a 30mph speed limit and
7.5t weight limit ahead") and so can be ignored for such purposes.

[Joking apart, Wetwang's strapline is actually "Welcomes careful
drivers"]

>I'm less worried about the white directions signs: they are
>stylistically recognisable enough that they're readily discounted and
>not so distracting. And the green footpath signs are small and
>unobtrusive enough not to be a worry either.
>
>But, granted, these are my guesses. It shouldn't be hard -- and would
>add some real value, not just here but everywhere -- to do some kind of
>proper study on why signs are missed or ignored.
>
>It's not helpful, IMO, just to say that anyone who doesn't see a sign
>should have their license revoked, and not attempt to go beyond that.

See "a sign", perhaps. But when there are four or five in succession?
And do Tiger Stripes count as "a sign"?
--
Roland Perry