Carryfast:
Roymondo:
Carryfast:
Chris1207:
Both helpfully inconspicuous & angled away from the road!Saying that, doesn’t look like it’d be >16ft either !
The 14’6’’ one seems to be angled to warn traffic turning left into the road and so probably fair enough.
But Royal College Street is one-way (except for cycles, most of which are well under 14 feet…) so there shouldn’t be any traffic turning left towards the bridge!
Blimey we’ve got a sign showing 14’6’’ that’s facing the wrong way for anyone to see it turning into Randolph Street.Then we’ve got a sign showing 14’4’’ just before the two bridge/s one of which is lower than the other.Then we’ve got a truck that’s low enough to get under the higher of the two bridges but not the lower one.TnetCSI can’t explain this one unless the truck approached the turn into Randolph Street from the wrong direction along a one way street or the lower bridge ain’t 14’4’’ high bearing in mind that 2 inches seems like an unrealistic margin regardless.
It’s also quite possible (likely, I’d suggest) that the two signs both refer to the lower of the two bridges. As they are a matter of feet apart - effectively one bridge - there would be no point at all in signing them separately. One of the signs is a warning sign, the other one a prohibition. The latter would require a Traffic Order to have any legal standing. It’s quite feasible that whoever installed the 14’ 4" warning sign was working to a different set of criteria than the legal bod who specified the 14’ 6" prohibition - e.g. “Simpkins, go measure the clearance under that bridge, knock 6 inches off for safety and stick a warning sign up with the appropriate measurement.” Simpkins measures it at 14’ 10" and produces a 14’ 4" warning sign. The legal types however apply the Traffic Signs manual procedure and knock 3 inches off for clearance then round down to the next whole multiple of 3", arriving at 14’ 6" for their prohibition sign.