https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQlKhCXUu-Q

Oddly, the poster seems to think this is evidence of a lack of signage,
rather than a lack of driving skill.

cf: https://goo.gl/maps/Eg4a6J2ofKfPFqjB6

And in the video the flashing red signs triggered by that half-inch-too-high
van.

That's half an inch too high for the actual 2.85m, not the signed 2.7m
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQlKhCXUu-Q
>
> Oddly, the poster seems to think this is evidence of a lack of signage,
> rather than a lack of driving skill.
>
> cf: https://goo.gl/maps/Eg4a6J2ofKfPFqjB6
>
> And in the video the flashing red signs triggered by that half-inch-too-high
> van.
>
> That's half an inch too high for the actual 2.85m, not the signed 2.7m

Presumably that van driver stopped before the bridge for no other reason
other than to contemplate whether they could make it? Wonder what went
through their mind?

On 25 Mar 2023 18:08, Tweed wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQlKhCXUu-Q
>>
>> Oddly, the poster seems to think this is evidence of a lack of signage,
>> rather than a lack of driving skill.
>>
>> cf: https://goo.gl/maps/Eg4a6J2ofKfPFqjB6
>>
>> And in the video the flashing red signs triggered by that half-inch-too-high
>> van.
>>
>> That's half an inch too high for the actual 2.85m, not the signed 2.7m
>
> Presumably that van driver stopped before the bridge for no other reason
> other than to contemplate whether they could make it? Wonder what went
> through their mind?

Not obvious from the footage but there are traffic lights there which
might have held the driver.

"Rupert Moss-Eccardt" <anonymous@anon.com> wrote in message
news:k88ueoF4vbfU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 25 Mar 2023 18:08, Tweed wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQlKhCXUu-Q
>>>
>>> Oddly, the poster seems to think this is evidence of a lack of signage,
>>> rather than a lack of driving skill.
>>>
>>> cf: https://goo.gl/maps/Eg4a6J2ofKfPFqjB6
>>>
>>> And in the video the flashing red signs triggered by that
>>> half-inch-too-high
>>> van.
>>>
>>> That's half an inch too high for the actual 2.85m, not the signed 2.7m
>>
>> Presumably that van driver stopped before the bridge for no other reason
>> other than to contemplate whether they could make it? Wonder what went
>> through their mind?
>
> Not obvious from the footage but there are traffic lights there which
> might have held the driver.

If the lights were green, the driver might have stopped to think "I'm *sure*
my van is just below [the stated height] - is it a false alarm?". Hence the
need for every tall vehicle to carry a prominent sign stating the height, so
the driver can compare with the restriction on the sign.

I knew someone who forgot that he was carrying two bikes upright on his
car's roof-rack, and went into a car park with a metal-frame height barrier
at the entrance: "I'm a car - of *course* I'll fit under a 6'6" barrier"...

On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 18:56:24 +0000, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <anonymous@anon.com>
wrote:

>On 25 Mar 2023 18:08, Tweed wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQlKhCXUu-Q
>>>
>>> Oddly, the poster seems to think this is evidence of a lack of signage,
>>> rather than a lack of driving skill.
>>>
>>> cf: https://goo.gl/maps/Eg4a6J2ofKfPFqjB6
>>>
>>> And in the video the flashing red signs triggered by that half-inch-too-high
>>> van.
>>>
>>> That's half an inch too high for the actual 2.85m, not the signed 2.7m
>>
>> Presumably that van driver stopped before the bridge for no other reason
>> other than to contemplate whether they could make it? Wonder what went
>> through their mind?
>
>Not obvious from the footage but there are traffic lights there which
>might have held the driver.

Yes, there's clearly traffic coming the other way while the van is
stationery. Given that it's a single alternate-flow lane under the bridge,
the van is obviously waiting for the lights to change. As, indeed, is
mentioned in the comments.

Mark

On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 22:43:23 +0000, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 18:56:24 +0000, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <anonymous@anon.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 25 Mar 2023 18:08, Tweed wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQlKhCXUu-Q
>>>>
>>>> Oddly, the poster seems to think this is evidence of a lack of signage,
>>>> rather than a lack of driving skill.
>>>>
>>>> cf: https://goo.gl/maps/Eg4a6J2ofKfPFqjB6
>>>>
>>>> And in the video the flashing red signs triggered by that half-inch-too-high
>>>> van.
>>>>
>>>> That's half an inch too high for the actual 2.85m, not the signed 2.7m
>>>
>>> Presumably that van driver stopped before the bridge for no other reason
>>> other than to contemplate whether they could make it? Wonder what went
>>> through their mind?
>>
>>Not obvious from the footage but there are traffic lights there which
>>might have held the driver.
>
>Yes, there's clearly traffic coming the other way while the van is
>stationery.

Write on!

On 25/03/2023 23:52, Nobody wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 22:43:23 +0000, Mark Goodge
> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 18:56:24 +0000, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <anonymous@anon.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Mar 2023 18:08, Tweed wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQlKhCXUu-Q
>>>>>
>>>>> Oddly, the poster seems to think this is evidence of a lack of signage,
>>>>> rather than a lack of driving skill.
>>>>>
>>>>> cf: https://goo.gl/maps/Eg4a6J2ofKfPFqjB6
>>>>>
>>>>> And in the video the flashing red signs triggered by that half-inch-too-high
>>>>> van.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's half an inch too high for the actual 2.85m, not the signed 2.7m
>>>>
>>>> Presumably that van driver stopped before the bridge for no other reason
>>>> other than to contemplate whether they could make it? Wonder what went
>>>> through their mind?
>>>
>>> Not obvious from the footage but there are traffic lights there which
>>> might have held the driver.
>>
>> Yes, there's clearly traffic coming the other way while the van is
>> stationery.
>
> Write on!

Obviously pushing the envelope of what's possible.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "Rupert Moss-Eccardt" <anonymous@anon.com> wrote in message
> news:k88ueoF4vbfU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 25 Mar 2023 18:08, Tweed wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQlKhCXUu-Q
>>>>
>>>> Oddly, the poster seems to think this is evidence of a lack of signage,
>>>> rather than a lack of driving skill.
>>>>
>>>> cf: https://goo.gl/maps/Eg4a6J2ofKfPFqjB6
>>>>
>>>> And in the video the flashing red signs triggered by that
>>>> half-inch-too-high
>>>> van.
>>>>
>>>> That's half an inch too high for the actual 2.85m, not the signed 2.7m
>>>
>>> Presumably that van driver stopped before the bridge for no other reason
>>> other than to contemplate whether they could make it? Wonder what went
>>> through their mind?
>>
>> Not obvious from the footage but there are traffic lights there which
>> might have held the driver.
>
> If the lights were green, the driver might have stopped to think "I'm *sure*
> my van is just below [the stated height] - is it a false alarm?". Hence the
> need for every tall vehicle to carry a prominent sign stating the height, so
> the driver can compare with the restriction on the sign.
>
> I knew someone who forgot that he was carrying two bikes upright on his
> car's roof-rack, and went into a car park with a metal-frame height barrier
> at the entrance: "I'm a car - of *course* I'll fit under a 6'6" barrier"...
>
>

I almost went through such a barrier in a car with a roof box fitted. I
wonder if those driving the vans are driving hire vans and their brain is
still in car mode? In that case no amount of in vehicle signage will help.

In message <tvndbr$29k0f$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:08:59 on Sat, 25 Mar
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQlKhCXUu-Q
>>
>> Oddly, the poster seems to think this is evidence of a lack of signage,
>> rather than a lack of driving skill.
>>
>> cf: https://goo.gl/maps/Eg4a6J2ofKfPFqjB6
>>
>> And in the video the flashing red signs triggered by that half-inch-too-high
>> van.
>>
>> That's half an inch too high for the actual 2.85m, not the signed 2.7m
>
>Presumably that van driver stopped before the bridge for no other reason
>other than to contemplate whether they could make it? Wonder what went
>through their mind?

The reason the van stopped is because when they permanently closed the
level crossing, they re-configured the underpass from two-way traffic
and a very narrow footpath, to single-alternate and a very wide
foot/cycle path. With traffic lights.

Thus as a driver you will almost always be caught at the lights because
they churn-round quite quickly [5-6 cars typically] and rarely does the
queue completely clear before they are red again. From time to time it
takes "two goes" to get through, because it's quite a busy road -
despite the availability of the bypass for people who don't mind the
excursion[1].

In that video you can see the van has three cars ahead of it. The one
immediately ahead of the van for some reason not making a particularly
quick getaway.

[1] There's a farm shop on the Stuntney Road which inexplicably
advertises itself as "One mile from the Cathedral", when Google
Maps says 2.1m, and that's on the direct route. But using the
bypass it's 3.6m

From the farm shop to the station car park, it would be 3.1m vs 1.6m
--
Roland Perry

In message <15uu1idq21f174iqieqor3mfoe1runo525@4ax.com>, at 22:43:23 on
Sat, 25 Mar 2023, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 18:56:24 +0000, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <anonymous@anon.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 25 Mar 2023 18:08, Tweed wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQlKhCXUu-Q
>>>>
>>>> Oddly, the poster seems to think this is evidence of a lack of signage,
>>>> rather than a lack of driving skill.
>>>>
>>>> cf: https://goo.gl/maps/Eg4a6J2ofKfPFqjB6
>>>>
>>>> And in the video the flashing red signs triggered by that
>>>>half-inch-too-high
>>>> van.
>>>>
>>>> That's half an inch too high for the actual 2.85m, not the signed 2.7m
>>>
>>> Presumably that van driver stopped before the bridge for no other reason
>>> other than to contemplate whether they could make it? Wonder what went
>>> through their mind?
>>
>>Not obvious from the footage but there are traffic lights there which
>>might have held the driver.
>
>Yes, there's clearly traffic coming the other way while the van is
>stationery.

That explains why it folded so easily when it hit the bridge ;)

>Given that it's a single alternate-flow lane under the bridge, the van
>is obviously waiting for the lights to change. As, indeed, is mentioned
>in the comments.
>
>Mark

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <15uu1idq21f174iqieqor3mfoe1runo525@4ax.com>, at 22:43:23 on
> Sat, 25 Mar 2023, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
> remarked:
>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 18:56:24 +0000, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <anonymous@anon.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Mar 2023 18:08, Tweed wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQlKhCXUu-Q
>>>>>
>>>>> Oddly, the poster seems to think this is evidence of a lack of signage,
>>>>> rather than a lack of driving skill.
>>>>>
>>>>> cf: https://goo.gl/maps/Eg4a6J2ofKfPFqjB6
>>>>>
>>>>> And in the video the flashing red signs triggered by that
>>>>> half-inch-too-high
>>>>> van.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's half an inch too high for the actual 2.85m, not the signed 2.7m
>>>>
>>>> Presumably that van driver stopped before the bridge for no other reason
>>>> other than to contemplate whether they could make it? Wonder what went
>>>> through their mind?
>>>
>>> Not obvious from the footage but there are traffic lights there which
>>> might have held the driver.
>>
>> Yes, there's clearly traffic coming the other way while the van is
>> stationery.
>
> That explains why it folded so easily when it hit the bridge ;)
>
>> Given that it's a single alternate-flow lane under the bridge, the van
>> is obviously waiting for the lights to change. As, indeed, is mentioned
>> in the comments.
>>
>> Mark
>

Well waiting at the lights, which I’d failed to notice, ought to give the
driver time to ponder the bridge. Clearly they didn’t. Perhaps a bit less
of calling people idiots and a bit more investigation as to why these
things happen might lead to better solutions.

In message <tvnqfg$2bqjp$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:51:55 on Sat, 25 Mar
2023, NY <me@privacy.invalid> remarked:
>"Rupert Moss-Eccardt" <anonymous@anon.com> wrote in message
>news:k88ueoF4vbfU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 25 Mar 2023 18:08, Tweed wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQlKhCXUu-Q
>>>>
>>>> Oddly, the poster seems to think this is evidence of a lack of signage,
>>>> rather than a lack of driving skill.
>>>>
>>>> cf: https://goo.gl/maps/Eg4a6J2ofKfPFqjB6
>>>>
>>>> And in the video the flashing red signs triggered by that
>>>>half-inch-too-high
>>>> van.
>>>>
>>>> That's half an inch too high for the actual 2.85m, not the signed 2.7m
>>>
>>> Presumably that van driver stopped before the bridge for no other reason
>>> other than to contemplate whether they could make it? Wonder what went
>>> through their mind?
>>
>> Not obvious from the footage but there are traffic lights there which
>> might have held the driver.
>
>If the lights were green, the driver might have stopped to think "I'm
>*sure* my van is just below [the stated height] - is it a false
>alarm?". Hence the need for every tall vehicle

Only those >3m, and the bridge is 2.7m - signed, 2.85m- actual; the
vehicles which come to grief are overwhelmingly in the 2.85-2.95m range.

>to carry a prominent sign stating the height, so the driver can compare
>with the restriction on the sign.
>
>I knew someone who forgot that he was carrying two bikes upright on his
>car's roof-rack, and went into a car park with a metal-frame height
>barrier at the entrance: "I'm a car - of *course* I'll fit under a 6'6"
>barrier"...

Yes, about a quarter of the bridge bashes there are of that kind. eg

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/16th-October-2019.jpg
http://www.perry.co.uk/images/4th_September_bash.jpg
http://www.perry.co.uk/images/bash-30-09-22.jpg

--
Roland Perry

In message <tvosq5$2k0f6$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:38:45 on Sun, 26 Mar
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> "Rupert Moss-Eccardt" <anonymous@anon.com> wrote in message
>> news:k88ueoF4vbfU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 25 Mar 2023 18:08, Tweed wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQlKhCXUu-Q
>>>>>
>>>>> Oddly, the poster seems to think this is evidence of a lack of signage,
>>>>> rather than a lack of driving skill.
>>>>>
>>>>> cf: https://goo.gl/maps/Eg4a6J2ofKfPFqjB6
>>>>>
>>>>> And in the video the flashing red signs triggered by that
>>>>> half-inch-too-high
>>>>> van.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's half an inch too high for the actual 2.85m, not the signed 2.7m
>>>>
>>>> Presumably that van driver stopped before the bridge for no other reason
>>>> other than to contemplate whether they could make it? Wonder what went
>>>> through their mind?
>>>
>>> Not obvious from the footage but there are traffic lights there which
>>> might have held the driver.
>>
>> If the lights were green, the driver might have stopped to think "I'm *sure*
>> my van is just below [the stated height] - is it a false alarm?". Hence the
>> need for every tall vehicle to carry a prominent sign stating the height, so
>> the driver can compare with the restriction on the sign.
>>
>> I knew someone who forgot that he was carrying two bikes upright on his
>> car's roof-rack, and went into a car park with a metal-frame height barrier
>> at the entrance: "I'm a car - of *course* I'll fit under a 6'6" barrier"...
>
>I almost went through such a barrier in a car with a roof box fitted. I
>wonder if those driving the vans are driving hire vans and their brain is
>still in car mode? In that case no amount of in vehicle signage will help.

Maybe a quarter of the bashes are hire vans (either well known day-hire,
or longer term rent-a-wrecks).

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/5th-Sept-2019.jpg
http://www.perry.co.uk/images/14th-Sept-2019.jpg
http://www.perry.co.uk/images/September-22-2018.jpg (more of a wedgie
than a bash)

Note how the number painted on the back and side of this one is the
loading area *length* not the superstructure *height* :

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/10th-October-2021b.jpg

--
Roland Perry

In message <tvpbl0$2md7p$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:52:00 on Sun, 26 Mar
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <15uu1idq21f174iqieqor3mfoe1runo525@4ax.com>, at 22:43:23 on
>> Sat, 25 Mar 2023, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>> remarked:
>>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 18:56:24 +0000, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <anonymous@anon.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25 Mar 2023 18:08, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQlKhCXUu-Q
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oddly, the poster seems to think this is evidence of a lack of signage,
>>>>>> rather than a lack of driving skill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cf: https://goo.gl/maps/Eg4a6J2ofKfPFqjB6
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And in the video the flashing red signs triggered by that
>>>>>> half-inch-too-high
>>>>>> van.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's half an inch too high for the actual 2.85m, not the signed 2.7m
>>>>>
>>>>> Presumably that van driver stopped before the bridge for no other reason
>>>>> other than to contemplate whether they could make it? Wonder what went
>>>>> through their mind?
>>>>
>>>> Not obvious from the footage but there are traffic lights there which
>>>> might have held the driver.
>>>
>>> Yes, there's clearly traffic coming the other way while the van is
>>> stationery.
>>
>> That explains why it folded so easily when it hit the bridge ;)
>>
>>> Given that it's a single alternate-flow lane under the bridge, the van
>>> is obviously waiting for the lights to change. As, indeed, is mentioned
>>> in the comments.
>
>Well waiting at the lights, which I’d failed to notice, ought to give the
>driver time to ponder the bridge. Clearly they didn’t. Perhaps a bit less
>of calling people idiots and a bit more investigation as to why these
>things happen might lead to better solutions.

I've been proposing reasons why for years. It's the local hecklers who
leap up and down crying "idiot", "should have gone to specsavers" etc,
over and over again.

The *best* solution (which I proposed in here, to violent opposition, a
couple of years back) is to plane about one inch off the surface. Then
almost all the vans which hit the bridge would pass through. That won't
fix the ones which are two inches too tall, but guess what, there simply
aren't very many of that size of van on the road at all.

The next best solution is to examine the psychology of the drivers[1]
who clearly don't think the signage applies to *them*. Either the signs
on the road the size of the back of a bus, or those flashing red ones
set off by the overheight detectors.

I'm coming to the conclusion that perhaps the only way would be to erect
a billboard with a picture of a van on it, and caption it

"If your van looks like this, IT WON'T FIT".

Then we just need to pick a sufficiently generic looking van that people
identify with it (rather than saying "no, my van is a different colour,
so it must be OK").

That probably won't fix all the overheight loads though, because they
are on pickup vans which do fit, but the add the load and it doesn't.

[1] And while a couple of dozen a year come a cropper, probably tens of
thousands a year don't. Either by refraining from entering that
stretch of road at all, or by turning back (with or without the
flashing red lights).
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> Then we just need to pick a sufficiently generic looking van that people
> identify with it (rather than saying "no, my van is a different colour,
> so it must be OK").
>
There was a time when I controlled access to a parking area by erecting a
chain between some posts at closing time, it was never closed off entirely
as there was a gap between one of the end posts
and some railings that you could with care get a transit sized vehicle
through so the chain in place was more symbolic than an actual barrier.
Occasionally there would the odd car still parked when I closed up but
they could still leave through the gap.
One day I had to go out promptly after erecting the chain and left through
the gap in a blue Vauxhall Astra noticing one car still parked which
happened to be a Red Astra .
Came back two hours later drove through the gap and stopped and was then
accosted by the driver of the parked up car who ranted I had locked him in,
he shut up and went as red as his car
when I pointed out that I had just driven through the end gap in the same
model of car he was driving and that AFAIK red ones were not wider than
blue ones .
He then made a sheepish exit through the gap .

GH

On 25/03/2023 21:51, NY wrote:
> I knew someone who forgot that he was carrying two bikes upright on his
> car's roof-rack, and went into a car park with a metal-frame height barrier
> at the entrance: "I'm a car - of*course* I'll fit under a 6'6" barrier"...

A couple of work colleagues did something similar. They went away for
the week working together so shared a vehicle. They put a bike rack on
the back and took bother bikes.

On return they stopped off at the supermarket to pick up some things.
The one driving forgot about the bikes and crushed them reversing into a
parking bay.

On 25/03/2023 21:51, NY wrote:
> If the lights were green, the driver might have stopped to think "I'm*sure*
> my van is just below [the stated height] - is it a false alarm?". Hence the
> need for every tall vehicle to carry a prominent sign stating the height, so
> the driver can compare with the restriction on the sign.

Every time I put the roof box on my car, I always measured the height
and put a note on the dashboard with the height in Imperial and metric.

Though I forgot about an amateur radio mobile antenna once in a
multi-storey car park!

On 26/03/2023 19:52, MB wrote:
> On 25/03/2023 21:51, NY wrote:
>> If the lights were green, the driver might have stopped to think
>> "I'm*sure* my van is just below [the stated height] - is it a false
>> alarm?". Hence the
>> need for every tall vehicle to carry a prominent sign stating the
>> height, so
>> the driver can compare with the restriction on the sign.
>
>
> Every time I put the roof box on my car, I always measured the height
> and put a note on the dashboard with the height in Imperial and metric.
>
> Though I forgot about an amateur radio mobile antenna once in a
> multi-storey car park!

This one?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/cms_media/module_img/1849/924797_1_articlelarge_bn-887189_ee3d064ada484e70821ed3f4adf13e06.jpg

>
>
>
>
>

"Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tvosq5$2k0f6$1@dont-email.me...
> I wonder if those driving the vans are driving hire vans and their brain
> is
> still in car mode? In that case no amount of in vehicle signage will help.

When I hired a van, I made sure I asked the hire salesman "what is the
height and the width of the van", and "what are the speed limits which apply
to this van", and I wrote them down and stuck them to the dashboard. He was
very impressed and said that they are forever having to refer speeding
tickets for "70 on a dual carriageway" or "60 on a single carriageway" to
the hirer (the limits are 60 and 50, respectively). He said that no-one had
actually scalped on of their vans but there have been a few with dents just
below the roof line.

One of the problems with height restrictions is roads where the first sign
that an overheight vehicle comes to is *after* the last point where it can
safely turn round. I remember a crash where a school bus somewhere in the
Midlands had to take a diversionary route and hit a bridge, and it was
discovered that the route he had taken, the first sign was a hundred yards
or so before the bridge. Obviously if you see a sign at the last minute, you
stop, but then you cause a traffic obstruction which could have been avoided
if there was an "overheight vehicles turn here" layby. It's like the
notorious ban on caravans going up Sutton Bank on the Thirsk-Helmsley route.
Coming from one direction, there is no height-restriction sign before the
turn at the roundabout, and after that there are several signs but no easy
way of turning a caravan round. I did once come down Sutton Bank to find a
caravan blocking the road where a driver was trying to do (effectively) a
three-point turn - ie not even reversing into a driveway or side road. He
did it: full marks for his reversing skills and his wife giving him
instructions over a mobile phone as to when he should stop. I can't help
thinking that he'd have done better to carry on: better to break the law but
get up easily than to block the road turning round. Much worse culprits are
lorries which have too little torque to set off on the hill if they have to
stop for any reason, and some which get slower and slower even if they keep
going and don't have to stop: those are the vehicles which should be banned,
and caravans of more than a certain power-to-weight ratio should be allowed.

"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:dqlJPzklrDIkFAK$@perry.uk...

> The *best* solution (which I proposed in here, to violent opposition, a
> couple of years back) is to plane about one inch off the surface. Then
> almost all the vans which hit the bridge would pass through. That won't
> fix the ones which are two inches too tall, but guess what, there simply
> aren't very many of that size of van on the road at all.

I hadn't realised that the bridge was *only just* too low to fit most vans.
In that case, it is better to make the bridge fit than to prevent all those
vans getting through. Or is there some service (pipe, cable) just below the
road surface which would be damaged if the road was lowered a smidgen?

"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:WbVbDPimPDIkFAJS@perry.uk...
>>If the lights were green, the driver might have stopped to think "I'm
>>*sure* my van is just below [the stated height] - is it a false alarm?".
>>Hence the need for every tall vehicle
>
> Only those >3m, and the bridge is 2.7m - signed, 2.85m- actual; the
> vehicles which come to grief are overwhelmingly in the 2.85-2.95m range.
>
>>to carry a prominent sign stating the height, so the driver can compare
>>with the restriction on the sign.

I'm not bothered what the legal restrictions are. Any vehicle that is likely
to be taller than the lowest railway bridge should have its height marked -
irrespective of whether it's taller or not than some arbitrary cut-off
height of 3 m. A driver needs to know whether his vehicle will fit, so he
needs to know his height.

The ultimate "will it fit" was a 1978 accident at Oyne between Aberdeen and
Inverness https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=775 where a
JCB was being transported on the back of a low-loader. This was a routine
movement and the driver knew that he had loaded the JCB himself as he always
did, with the jib stowed in such a way that the overall height was less than
the height of certain railway bridge on his regular route. However on one
occasion, after loading the JCB, someone else started up the JCB to remove
the bucket, and left it in a different state such that it was now over the
height of the bridge. The driver was not told this, and I presume the
difference was not immediately obvious. That knocked the decking of the
bridge sideways on the bridge abutments and an approaching train was
derailed, fortunately without causing serious injuries.

"MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:tvq3po$2qd8d$1@dont-email.me...
> On 25/03/2023 21:51, NY wrote:
>> I knew someone who forgot that he was carrying two bikes upright on his
>> car's roof-rack, and went into a car park with a metal-frame height
>> barrier
>> at the entrance: "I'm a car - of*course* I'll fit under a 6'6"
>> barrier"...
>
>
> A couple of work colleagues did something similar. They went away for the
> week working together so shared a vehicle. They put a bike rack on the
> back and took bother bikes.
>
> On return they stopped off at the supermarket to pick up some things. The
> one driving forgot about the bikes and crushed them reversing into a
> parking bay.

We've got a bike rack that fits on the towbar and fortunately the bikes are
*very* visible in the car's reversing camera. Neither of us have yet
reversed them into anything. The bigger problem is if the bike rack is left
on the car without any bikes on it: it's a bugger to lift on and off, so we
tend to leave it on if we are intending to do another bike ride the
following weekend. Without bikes, the rack is much less visible on the
camera.

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 20:13:49 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
>news:dqlJPzklrDIkFAK$@perry.uk...
>
>> The *best* solution (which I proposed in here, to violent opposition, a
>> couple of years back) is to plane about one inch off the surface. Then
>> almost all the vans which hit the bridge would pass through. That won't
>> fix the ones which are two inches too tall, but guess what, there simply
>> aren't very many of that size of van on the road at all.
>
>I hadn't realised that the bridge was *only just* too low to fit most vans.
>In that case, it is better to make the bridge fit than to prevent all those
>vans getting through. Or is there some service (pipe, cable) just below the
>road surface which would be damaged if the road was lowered a smidgen?

As always, the real question is who would pay for it.

Network Rail has no incentive to pay for it, because the bridge isn't going
to be signficantly damaged by a Transit van so there's no real cost to them.
And what minimal costs there are, are covered by the vans' insurers.

The highway authority (the county council) has no incentive to pay for it,
because the road isn't what gets hit and isn't damaged at all. And, of
course, if there ever was any damage to the road, it would be covered by
insurance, as above. Plus, the county doesn't really want people using that
road at all - they have deliberately reduced the capacity of the road under
the bridge in order to encourage people to use the newly constructed
by-pass. So they're not going to want to do anything which would make it
easier for some vehicles to use the road. If anything, the occasional bash
helps encourage people to go the other way around.

Mark

On 26/03/2023 21:20, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 20:13:49 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
>> news:dqlJPzklrDIkFAK$@perry.uk...
>>
>>> The *best* solution (which I proposed in here, to violent opposition, a
>>> couple of years back) is to plane about one inch off the surface. Then
>>> almost all the vans which hit the bridge would pass through. That won't
>>> fix the ones which are two inches too tall, but guess what, there simply
>>> aren't very many of that size of van on the road at all.
>>
>> I hadn't realised that the bridge was *only just* too low to fit most vans.
>> In that case, it is better to make the bridge fit than to prevent all those
>> vans getting through. Or is there some service (pipe, cable) just below the
>> road surface which would be damaged if the road was lowered a smidgen?
>
> As always, the real question is who would pay for it.
>
> Network Rail has no incentive to pay for it, because the bridge isn't going
> to be signficantly damaged by a Transit van so there's no real cost to them.
> And what minimal costs there are, are covered by the vans' insurers.
>
> The highway authority (the county council) has no incentive to pay for it,
> because the road isn't what gets hit and isn't damaged at all. And, of
> course, if there ever was any damage to the road, it would be covered by
> insurance, as above. Plus, the county doesn't really want people using that
> road at all - they have deliberately reduced the capacity of the road under
> the bridge in order to encourage people to use the newly constructed
> by-pass. So they're not going to want to do anything which would make it
> easier for some vehicles to use the road. If anything, the occasional bash
> helps encourage people to go the other way around.

Are there practical issues if the road is lowered? For example:

It would undercut the bridge foundations, so it would need some very,
very hefty underpinning.

It would flood with minimal rain, so there'd have to be some major pumps
installed.

Besides that, lowering the road only reduces the problem. It doesn't
eliminate it.

Personally, I prefer some dry ice fog and a laser graphic projected on it.

>
> Mark

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 21:34:40 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:

>On 26/03/2023 21:20, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 20:13:49 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:dqlJPzklrDIkFAK$@perry.uk...
>>>
>>>> The *best* solution (which I proposed in here, to violent opposition, a
>>>> couple of years back) is to plane about one inch off the surface. Then
>>>> almost all the vans which hit the bridge would pass through. That won't
>>>> fix the ones which are two inches too tall, but guess what, there simply
>>>> aren't very many of that size of van on the road at all.
>>>
>>> I hadn't realised that the bridge was *only just* too low to fit most vans.
>>> In that case, it is better to make the bridge fit than to prevent all those
>>> vans getting through. Or is there some service (pipe, cable) just below the
>>> road surface which would be damaged if the road was lowered a smidgen?
>>
>> As always, the real question is who would pay for it.
>>
>> Network Rail has no incentive to pay for it, because the bridge isn't going
>> to be signficantly damaged by a Transit van so there's no real cost to them.
>> And what minimal costs there are, are covered by the vans' insurers.
>>
>> The highway authority (the county council) has no incentive to pay for it,
>> because the road isn't what gets hit and isn't damaged at all. And, of
>> course, if there ever was any damage to the road, it would be covered by
>> insurance, as above. Plus, the county doesn't really want people using that
>> road at all - they have deliberately reduced the capacity of the road under
>> the bridge in order to encourage people to use the newly constructed
>> by-pass. So they're not going to want to do anything which would make it
>> easier for some vehicles to use the road. If anything, the occasional bash
>> helps encourage people to go the other way around.
>
>Are there practical issues if the road is lowered? For example:
>
>It would undercut the bridge foundations, so it would need some very,
>very hefty underpinning.
>
>It would flood with minimal rain, so there'd have to be some major pumps
>installed.
>
>Besides that, lowering the road only reduces the problem. It doesn't
>eliminate it.
>
>Personally, I prefer some dry ice fog and a laser graphic projected on it.
>
If there are any services under the bridge then shaving the surface
could leave insufficient depth. Lowering any underground services
would not be cheap but on the bright side it would stop the bridge
being hit for a few weeks. That presumes that Messrs Diggit & Fillet
don't take the top off their vehicle.