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?

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.
--
Roland Perry

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.

Of course, there's always the risk someone will stick ladders etc on the
roof of a white van, and hence be too high for a 2.7m statutory (rather
than 2.85m practical) limit. One day I must creep up on one of these and
measure it: http://www.perry.co.uk/images/2point7metres.jpg

For the record, Transits like that currently come in heights of 2738 and
2797, none at all more than 2.8m (nor were there for the previous 2014
series model, max 2765).

Of course, I've therefore never seen a Transit come to grief at Ely,
it's usually the Mercedes vans, which have a slightly taller
ceiling-height, or vans with custom-built backs. Without spending
another half hour looking them up, I'm pretty confident the Mercedes
will be 2.86m, and the custom vans are very often "wedgies", so no more
than 1cm above the current 2.85m
--
Roland Perry

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.

> 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.

> 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).
>
> [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.

> 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?

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

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.

--
John

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 believe they 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.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.
>
> A roundabout, a pelican crossing [do traffic lights and Keep Left
> bollards count as one or three, and don't get me started about green/red
> men pointing along the road rather than across it
> <https://goo.gl/maps/wzXtwB1yAnmJ6kgg6> ] and a station entrance, quite
> apart from the underpass and the closed level crossing.
>
> Also, these bridge bashes haven't accelerated with increased signage,
> they have merely not reduced.
>
> It's human nature to look at a bridge being bashed, when all there is to
> prevent it is one dinner-plate sized roundel, and think "maybe if we
> made the signs bigger / or put some Tiger Stripes on / or installed more
> signs on the roads leading to the bridge" that it would deter the
> drivers.
>
> What's actually required is more research into why drivers ignore the
> signs, however big or many there are. My own hunch is that they *do* see
> the signs, but for some reason don't think they apply to the vehicle
> they are driving.

I think that the majority of ordinary vehicle drivers don't actually pay
any attention to any road signs at all.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

John Aldridge <jpsa@cantab.net> wrote:
> 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.
>

But unless it's enforced, everyone will ignore the 5mph speed limit. So
you'll be solving the problem people ignoring signs by adding more signs
for them to ignore. And if you do want the limit enforced, that's more
signs…

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <st91iu$seq$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:09:02 on Mon, 31 Jan
> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> A roundabout, a pelican crossing [do traffic lights and Keep Left
>>> bollards count as one or three, and don't get me started about green/red
>>> men pointing along the road rather than across it
>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/wzXtwB1yAnmJ6kgg6> ] and a station entrance, quite
>>> apart from the underpass and the closed level crossing.
>>>
>>> Also, these bridge bashes haven't accelerated with increased signage,
>>> they have merely not reduced.
>>>
>>> It's human nature to look at a bridge being bashed, when all there is to
>>> prevent it is one dinner-plate sized roundel, and think "maybe if we
>>> made the signs bigger / or put some Tiger Stripes on / or installed more
>>> signs on the roads leading to the bridge" that it would deter the
>>> drivers.
>>>
>>> What's actually required is more research into why drivers ignore the
>>> signs, however big or many there are. My own hunch is that they *do* see
>>> the signs, but for some reason don't think they apply to the vehicle
>>> they are driving.
>>
>> For the van hire drivers I wonder if they are otherwise car drivers? If so,
>> they may never pay attention to height signs as there’s no need when
>> driving a car. I know that I as a car driver never process height signs.
>
> I look at height signs (although haven't yet encountered a bridge that
> was too low, just one multi-storey car park which had lots of plumbing
> attached to the ceiling). With roof-bars on, 1.85m
>
> In other news, someone commenting on the recent Ely bash has suggested
> that it was because the van was empty, and the driver knew it would fit
> if loaded. Err, no, I don't think the suspension is that soggy.
>
>

I suspect you're wrong on that.

A friend has recently moved house and discovered that his Landrover fits
into his new shed when fully loaded, but won't fit out again once it's
empty! The comments on that post contain several other people with similar
recollections in other locations…

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <st90op$9if$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:55:06 on Mon, 31 Jan
> 2022, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>> On 31/01/2022 15:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <st8s8f$480$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:38:08 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>> 2022, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>>>> On 31/01/2022 14:22, MB wrote:
>>>>> On 31/01/2022 14:11, GB wrote:
>>>>>> Wouldn't it be cheaper just to change all the signage to say that the
>>>>>> height is 2.6m (instead of the present 2.7m)?
>>>>>  Wouldn't drivers get used to that and believe there was always an
>>>>> extra  few inches clearance?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You may well be right.
>>>>
>>>> Roland's solution is to make the actual height 3cms bigger, by
>>>> lowering the road.
>
>>> Which my well be not enough to trigger the signage going to the next
>>> step up (2.8m I presume). But remember that would actually be the
>>> current 2.85m + 0.03
>
>>> The reason for lowering the road isn't to play salami-slicing with
>>> the signage, but because there's a substantial feet of vehicles out
>>> there which appear to be 2.86-2.87m tall
>>
>> Perhaps there really are loads of vehicles 2.86-2.87m tall. But, it
>> seems rather unlikely, especially with "a negligible fleet of vans
>> whose inherent height is 2.88-3m high".
>
> Yes, there really really are loads of vehicles that just-don't-quite-
> fit. That particular model of Mercedes with the wind deflector over the
> cab (and a couple of other makes which are essentially clones).
>
> 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).
>
>> You could be right in that surmise, but, before persuading anybody to
>> spend loads of money lowering the roadway, you ought to justify it. I'm
>> not sure how?
>
> 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
>
> [Yes, I know, Delivering Parcels Dangerously].
>
>> Is there a database of vehicle heights?
>
> Part of the problem is that the data is dispersed amongst lots of
> manufacturer databases. And then there's the custom-backs which people
> like Tesco and hire companies fix on the back of a chassis, where the
> database can only realistically have the height of the cab section,
> before the back-end was added.
>
> Maybe the DVLA database (linked to the licence plate) should also have
> the individual height of the custom-built vehicle in it (as well as the
> other stuff about engine sizes and CO2 G/KM). Although I wonder if the
> latter can be properly measured and recorded once a custom-back and its
> custom air resistance has been added to a chassis/cab delivered from the
> factory.
>
> In case people are unfamiliar with the concept:
>
> <https://www.van-discount.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2014-ford-
> transit-chassis-cab.jpg>
>
>>> No, they have some reason for thinking their vehicle will fit
>>
>> Or, they are just distracted, not thinking about it?
>
> They would need to be multiply-distracted, because by the time they get
> to that bridge they'll have passed about six signs dotted along three
> quarters of a mile (that's counting signs on both sides of the road as
> 'one')
>
>>>> In fact, until research is done into what causes the problem, it's
>>>> not sensible to try any expensive solutions. Cheap changes, that
>>>> seem plausible, are in effect part of the research process.
>
>>> I'm not sure anyone is doing that research (other than my attempts
>>> in places such as this).
>
>>> It's pretty clear Network Rail in Ely are just ordering more popcorn
>>> and chuckling about the balsa-wood vans [literally] topping
>>> themselves on the two foot thick raft of reinforced concrete with
>>> movement sensors.
>>
>> It is chuckle time, really. Unlike the double decker buses trying to
>> fit under single decker bridges, nobody is hurt when a van gets topped.
>
> Not directly hurt, but the subsequent traffic jams and delays may have
> collateral damage, such as patients late arriving at hospital.
>
>> Who would be interested enough to pay for research to be done?
>
> Shroud-waving Network Rail would be the prime candidate.
>
> The first step might be to conduct "exit interviews" with the perps. To
> determine their views on why they ignored all the warnings. There's a
> bit of that with the latest one, where there's a hint in the reporting
> the driver said "I was following my Satnav", but he probably doesn't
> have a satnav that's cognoscent of the height of the vehicle he's
> driving. And/or an out of date map. So whose fault is that?

It would perhaps be interesting to know how many were local and used the
road regularly in other vehicles, compared to people who'd never driven
that way before.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

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".
--
Roland Perry

In message <stbfjp$8q7$6@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:41 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022,
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <st91iu$seq$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:09:02 on Mon, 31 Jan
>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> A roundabout, a pelican crossing [do traffic lights and Keep Left
>>>> bollards count as one or three, and don't get me started about green/red
>>>> men pointing along the road rather than across it
>>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/wzXtwB1yAnmJ6kgg6> ] and a station entrance, quite
>>>> apart from the underpass and the closed level crossing.
>>>>
>>>> Also, these bridge bashes haven't accelerated with increased signage,
>>>> they have merely not reduced.
>>>>
>>>> It's human nature to look at a bridge being bashed, when all there is to
>>>> prevent it is one dinner-plate sized roundel, and think "maybe if we
>>>> made the signs bigger / or put some Tiger Stripes on / or installed more
>>>> signs on the roads leading to the bridge" that it would deter the
>>>> drivers.
>>>>
>>>> What's actually required is more research into why drivers ignore the
>>>> signs, however big or many there are. My own hunch is that they *do* see
>>>> the signs, but for some reason don't think they apply to the vehicle
>>>> they are driving.
>>>
>>> For the van hire drivers I wonder if they are otherwise car drivers? If so,
>>> they may never pay attention to height signs as there’s no need when
>>> driving a car. I know that I as a car driver never process height signs.
>>
>> I look at height signs (although haven't yet encountered a bridge that
>> was too low, just one multi-storey car park which had lots of plumbing
>> attached to the ceiling). With roof-bars on, 1.85m
>>
>> In other news, someone commenting on the recent Ely bash has suggested
>> that it was because the van was empty, and the driver knew it would fit
>> if loaded. Err, no, I don't think the suspension is that soggy.
>
>I suspect you're wrong on that.
>
>A friend has recently moved house and discovered that his Landrover fits
>into his new shed when fully loaded, but won't fit out again once it's
>empty! The comments on that post contain several other people with similar
>recollections in other locations…

How much sag does his suspension have? You'd need at least half an inch
I think. They got the recent van at Ely out by letting down the tyres (a
common recovery method).
--
Roland Perry

In message <stbfjp$8q7$7@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:41 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022,
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:

>>>>> In fact, until research is done into what causes the problem, it's
>>>>> not sensible to try any expensive solutions. Cheap changes, that
>>>>> seem plausible, are in effect part of the research process.
>>
>>>> I'm not sure anyone is doing that research (other than my attempts
>>>> in places such as this).
>>
>>>> It's pretty clear Network Rail in Ely are just ordering more popcorn
>>>> and chuckling about the balsa-wood vans [literally] topping
>>>> themselves on the two foot thick raft of reinforced concrete with
>>>> movement sensors.
>>>
>>> It is chuckle time, really. Unlike the double decker buses trying to
>>> fit under single decker bridges, nobody is hurt when a van gets topped.
>>
>> Not directly hurt, but the subsequent traffic jams and delays may have
>> collateral damage, such as patients late arriving at hospital.
>>
>>> Who would be interested enough to pay for research to be done?
>>
>> Shroud-waving Network Rail would be the prime candidate.
>>
>> The first step might be to conduct "exit interviews" with the perps. To
>> determine their views on why they ignored all the warnings. There's a
>> bit of that with the latest one, where there's a hint in the reporting
>> the driver said "I was following my Satnav", but he probably doesn't
>> have a satnav that's cognoscent of the height of the vehicle he's
>> driving. And/or an out of date map. So whose fault is that?
>
>It would perhaps be interesting to know how many were local and used the
>road regularly in other vehicles, compared to people who'd never driven
>that way before.

I think the majority are non-locals. It's a bit of a funnel for
east-west traffic, given the paucity of alternative A-road crossings of
the Ouse and the railway (if we ignore the new bypass, which all these
vans have by definition) - Downham Market to the north and Cambridge to
the south.

That's why there were big queues at the former level crossing, and the
need for an underpass for cars, and eventually the decision to spend
what turned out to be fifty million on the rather short bypass.

(Against which cost, even if planing an inch off 50 metres of road costs
a million it's in the noise level, and would probably have been almost
free, given they resurfaced it anyway as part of the project).

https://www.smartertransport.uk/why-a-13m-overspend-matters/

And for locals, there's no much reason to go east until you get to
Newmarket, with most local journeys being north-south (parallel to rail
and river and A10) rather than east-west.
--
Roland Perry

On 01/02/2022 11:46, Roland Perry 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.
>

You've never had to transport stage-sets obviously!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Am 01.02.2022 um 15:36 schrieb Roland Perry:
> 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?

My understanding from Germany is that the number of real emergencies for
ambulance and fire services are sufficiently high that a new driver will
get "training on the job" immediately, with an experienced co-pilot.

Police drivers OTOH rarely have those emergency chases where they
strictly need sirens,

>> 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.

My understanding was that an ambulance only switches on the sirens when
there is an emergency.

> I thought any police officer in uniform[1] could do that, regardless of
> what else they were doing at the time, practising or otherwise.

If British rules are anything like continental rules, the police person
has to be physically present on the jucntion and visible to all vehicles
about to enter in order to regulate the traffic. The German saying
"Siehst du Brust und Rücken musst du auf die Bremse drücken" (if you see
chest or back you have to brake) points to a policeman even having to
pose in a very specific way if he wishes to overrule traffic lights.

Apart from that, I would not expect traffic regulations to be "law" as
opposed to "keeping up the order" (ignoring orders from the police might
turn into a situation where lwa starts getting involved but 'ignoring'
implies that you must have received and understood an order).

Rolf

In message <stblj9$has$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:02:49 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022,
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 01/02/2022 11:46, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <st907b$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.
>>
>
>You've never had to transport stage-sets obviously!

Nor do most people. But the ones you refer to, did they fit inside a 3.5
ton van, rather than something much heavier?
--
Roland Perry

On 01/02/2022 16:27, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> You've never had to transport stage-sets obviously!
>
> Nor do most people. But the ones you refer to, did they fit inside a 3.5
> ton van, rather than something much heavier?

I looked up the heights of a couple of Luton vans, and they were both
over 3m. But, you are saying that those rarely hit the bridge.

"How tall is the tallest Sprinter van? The interior height of the
tallest Sprinter van is 89 inches (or 2260 mm). The exterior height (or
clearance) is 120.1 inches (or 3050 mm). This is the roof height H3. The
second tallest roof height is the H2. This model's interior height is
79.9 inches (or 2030 mm), and the exterior height is 111 inches (or 2820
mm)."

So, there's certainly a range of sizes, but you may be right that there
are relatively few of the 2.85m+ ones.

In message <stbn3f$1a4$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:28:34 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022,
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> remarked:
>Am 01.02.2022 um 15:36 schrieb Roland Perry:
>> 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?
>
>My understanding from Germany is that the number of real emergencies
>for ambulance and fire services are sufficiently high that a new driver
>will get "training on the job" immediately, with an experienced co-pilot.
>
>Police drivers OTOH rarely have those emergency chases where they
>strictly need sirens,

It used to be like that in he UK, until about 20yrs ago when the police
changed tactics and spend most of their time at the police station, and
then whenever called out, for anything, rush around with sirens blaring.

>>> 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.
>
>My understanding was that an ambulance only switches on the sirens when
>there is an emergency.

Probably true, but doesn't help explain who "they" are above.
--
Roland Perry

Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> 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?
>
> Possibly a little counter to popular opinion, speed in transit is rarely
> a critical factor in ambulance response times. Unlike the police, where
> half a minute can make the difference between catching a perpetrator in
> the act or not, or, of course, when chasing another vehicle. So
> ambulance drivers are trained to be cautious about breaking the speed
> limit or going through red lights, and only do so when they can be
> certain of doing so safely. They don't need to be as gung ho as the
> police, and therefore aren't.
>
>>> I believe they
>>
>> ??Police drivers practising, or something else??
>
> Ambulance drivers, as is obvious from the context.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Yes, but an ambulance driver isn't a police officer, and cannot
> therefore give permission for another vehicle to go through a red light.
>
> Mark
>

It only requires a change in the law to allow ambulance drivers to act as a
police officer in this context. There is presumably a reason why this
hasn’t happened.

Every ambulance on blue lights round here goes as fast as they are able and
jumps every red light they can, to the extent of driving on the wrong side
of the road to skip the queues at the lights.

On 01/02/2022 14:36, Roland Perry wrote:
> 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?

They park up and wait for an emergency call to another vehicle and head
for the scene so legally they are responding to an emergency.

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/>

The later ones I see now do not look quite as tall.

I wonder if there were high incidents of damage not always from bridges
,trees can have quite substantial low branches down some country lanes
especially when in full leaf and wet.

GH

On 01/02/2022 16:28, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> If British rules are anything like continental rules, the police person
> has to be physically present on the jucntion and visible to all vehicles
> about to enter in order to regulate the traffic.  The German saying
> "Siehst du Brust und Rücken musst du auf die Bremse drücken" (if you see
> chest or back you have to brake) points to a policeman even having to
> pose in a very specific way if he wishes to overrule traffic lights.

Wenn Sie nur die Seite sehen, beschleunigen und weitergehen!
(If you only see the side, accelerate and continue!)
(With apologies to those who can actually write German correctly.)

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <st91iu$seq$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:09:02 on Mon, 31 Jan
>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> A roundabout, a pelican crossing [do traffic lights and Keep Left
>>>> bollards count as one or three, and don't get me started about green/red
>>>> men pointing along the road rather than across it
>>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/wzXtwB1yAnmJ6kgg6> ] and a station entrance, quite
>>>> apart from the underpass and the closed level crossing.
>>>>
>>>> Also, these bridge bashes haven't accelerated with increased signage,
>>>> they have merely not reduced.
>>>>
>>>> It's human nature to look at a bridge being bashed, when all there is to
>>>> prevent it is one dinner-plate sized roundel, and think "maybe if we
>>>> made the signs bigger / or put some Tiger Stripes on / or installed more
>>>> signs on the roads leading to the bridge" that it would deter the
>>>> drivers.
>>>>
>>>> What's actually required is more research into why drivers ignore the
>>>> signs, however big or many there are. My own hunch is that they *do* see
>>>> the signs, but for some reason don't think they apply to the vehicle
>>>> they are driving.
>>>
>>> For the van hire drivers I wonder if they are otherwise car drivers? If so,
>>> they may never pay attention to height signs as there’s no need when
>>> driving a car. I know that I as a car driver never process height signs.
>>
>> I look at height signs (although haven't yet encountered a bridge that
>> was too low, just one multi-storey car park which had lots of plumbing
>> attached to the ceiling). With roof-bars on, 1.85m
>>
>> In other news, someone commenting on the recent Ely bash has suggested
>> that it was because the van was empty, and the driver knew it would fit
>> if loaded. Err, no, I don't think the suspension is that soggy.
>>
>>
>
> I suspect you're wrong on that.
>
> A friend has recently moved house and discovered that his Landrover fits
> into his new shed when fully loaded, but won't fit out again once it's
> empty! The comments on that post contain several other people with similar
> recollections in other locations…
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>

A different degree of spring compression between full and empty but a
builder friend of my fathers and the driver of the concrete mixer lorry
got one stuck in a large agricultural building he was constructing . All
had been well for the first few loads for the concrete floor with the
lorry entering and exiting the doorway and dropping concrete at the far end
but the ground around the entrance to the door was getting churned up, as
it was a Friday the last load of the day was deposited in the doorway area
so it could harden by Tuesday which as it was a BH weekend was the next
working day.
Come Tuesday AM the lorry reversed through the door and recommenced
dropping the load at the furthest point from the door it then tried to
leave but the ground in the doorway was now about a foot higher and there
was a large clang as the filling hopper of the vehicle hit the beam above
door halting progress. The hopper had to be cut off ,tyres let down and
the barrel filled with water to effect an exit which became a costly
exercise with the concrete firm charging demurrage for the time the vehicle
was trapped and the doorway needed remedial work ,they tried to charge for
repairs to the hopper but backed down on that accepting their driver should
have realised he could not get out.

GH

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.

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.

Anyway, here's one of a very similar style which got wedged underneath,
retrieved by letting down the tyres, and then abandoned in the adjacent
station car park: http://www.perry.co.uk/images/bash-ticket.jpg

I don't think the damage to the roofline is contemporary (nor is that to
the bumper/grille), and I suspect the van dived very slightly as the
driver braked, and then rose sufficiently to wedge itself. In a sense,
one of the things which makes this bridge interesting is the variety of
vehicles which ONLY-JUST-DON'T-FIT. Like for example Ocado vans:

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/ocado-ely.jpg

That one litrally scraped under the first (goods loop) span, and decided not to
risk the second (up/down main) span. But still had to have its tyres let down
to escape.

At the risk of labouring the point, all these "only just don't fit" vans would
be OK if the road surface was very very slightly lowered. But still ripe for
prosecution because 15cm taller than the prohibition signs.

Here's a couple more:

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/28-Aug-2019.jpg
http://www.perry.co.uk/images/3rd_July_2017.jpg

Note again in that last one (12 months old, a Nissan), the flat tyres to
extract it, and it looks very similar to the Bayfield Luton, which I continue
to think is actually unlikely to be a whole half a metre too tall.

>I wonder if there were high incidents of damage not always from bridges
>,trees can have quite substantial low branches down some country lanes
>especially when in full leaf and wet.

Hire vans have a pretty hard life, people often try to get them in and
out of driveways where they don't really fit. The long-wheelbase one I
hired had the nearside rear quarter-panel all bashed in (and they
apologised for that in advance, but it didn't worry me, it's not a
beauty competition! In fact its availability at all might have relied on
finding not-too-picky customers.)

** I have to say I think that's a bit of an over-estimate, typo even,
and would have expected much closer to the magic 2.85m) but in any case
it shows the outline of the typical victims, Mercedes Luton with the
wind deflector over the cab, which don't quite fit Ely's 2.85m
(-measured, -2.7m signed) by a little under an inch. Later: see also 3rd
July victim.
--
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.
--
Roland Perry