Read the full article before commenting!!! Disused bridge with no height sign!
dailymail.co.uk/news/article … ueues.html
where does it say no height sign?
its drivers fault trying to take a short cut in a hgv is a non starter unless you know the road which he obviously didn’t.
Technically driver not at fault as with no markings bridge should have been over 16ft 6in, but surely driver could have seen that car transporter was never going to fit under bridge.
war1974:
where does it say no height sign?
Can you see a height sign??
Really■■? You have to ask 
LOL 
wing-nut:
Technically driver not at fault as with no markings bridge should have been over 16ft 6in, but surely driver could have seen that car transporter was never going to fit under bridge.
Wow he must of hit it at speed and if you think looking at that bridge it’s 16ft 6 you need to go to specsavers lol
war1974:
where does it say no height sign?its drivers fault trying to take a short cut in a hgv is a non starter unless you know the road which he obviously didn’t.
Do you see a height limit sign on the bridge in the picture?
Somewhere in the comments section, was mentioned the bridge is no longer in use, no height warning sign along the approach, although he was blindly following the dreaded sat nav! Technically, where does he stand (apart from in the corner with no tea!) with the lack of signage?
Am sure any half way decent driver would stop and check, maybe the lack of experienced driver might be part of it, which would of course refer back to several other topics ref driver shortage, foreign drivers, use of sat nav etc etc etc!
Driver, possibly.
Don’t know which way he was going but there is a sign on both approaches. Or at least there was in 2009. 
Coffeeholic:
Don’t know which way he was going but there is a sign on both approaches. Or at least there was in 2009.
You’re right, although sign on one side looks to be almost hidden in bushes, but I always thought height also had to be displayed on bridge.
wing-nut:
You’re right, although sign on one side looks to be almost hidden in bushes
Those images are from 2009 so growth may have been cut back, or got worse.
wing-nut:
but I always thought height also had to be displayed on bridge.
As far as I’m aware the regulations only say there should be height warning signs at the bridge.
In the comments section of the article and just posted minutes ago someone is saying - “It has enough signs leading up to it, I use that road quite often”
DoT Traffic signs book states
At non-arch bridges mandatory signs may be used; it is unlawful for an overheight vehicle to pass one of these.
They are placed on the bridge and at the side of the road in front of the bridge.
So I reckon driver might just get away with that one. At least no trains were delayed
My understanding was it must be on the bridge.
Otherwise, theoretically a farm vehicle could enter the highway from a gateway and miss roadside signage.
If the driver does get away with it, you can bet your bottom dollar the Daily Fail won’t be reporting that this accident was due in part to a lack of signage.
Chained down nicely, though.
If it hadn’t been for the approach signs I would assume this is 16’6…would I be wrong in doing so? I have to admit the other week I took a b road out of an industrial area (different way to what I came in). Rounded a corner at 20mph…last thing I expected was a bridge…it had no signs so I thought it would be 16’6 (end of the day b road is not exactly a minor road…). It went under but I didn’t have time to stop, only slowdown before the front of the wagon went under it…makes me wonder if I need to be more wary of this, always wary of signs but if there is no signs then…who is to blame?! I could understand no signs possibly on a disused or very minor road (except for access road near my house has an advance warning of a 5ft6 bridge but no signs on the actual bridge!!) but surely on a numbered road it is reasonable to expect the height to be marked?
wing-nut:
DoT Traffic signs book statesAt non-arch bridges mandatory signs may be used; it is unlawful for an overheight vehicle to pass one of these.
They are placed on the bridge and at the side of the road in front of the bridge.So I reckon driver might just get away with that one. At least no trains were delayed
Different sign - that’s talking about the mandatory circular signs which, as stated, it is indeed unlawful to pass with an overheight vehicle. But you can only have that type of sign if there is a Traffic Order prohibiting overheight vehicles from using the road. The ones in the photos are warning signs, which are the type used for the majority of bridges.
Far as I know, the legal requirement is that the signs must be “adequate”. On a lightly used “unclassified” rural road like that one, warning signs at around 45m would be classed as “adequate”. I don’t think there’s a specific legal requirement for signs to be fixed on the bridge itself.
One thing I’ve noticed is that with my Scania the trailer rides higher than with a DAF. One day I’ll take a tape measure and a garden cane and measure them.
That railway line was probably a victim of Dr Beeching, so may not be under the jurisdiction of network rail, so could be down to the HA or local council to maintain the signs.
So who’ll pick up the bill for all the smashed up motors? The highways agnecy or the council?
Ford is a right good job I might just apply in case they get shot eh the driver