expressandstar.com/news/loc … lichfield/
The driver is in hospital but not badly injured - That’s a 15’ bridge…
expressandstar.com/news/loc … lichfield/
The driver is in hospital but not badly injured - That’s a 15’ bridge…
Santa:
Long delays after lorry hits bridge and overturns in Lichfield | Express & StarThe driver is in hospital but not badly injured - That’s a 15’ bridge…
14ft 9
Strange Google maps of the bridge say 15ft and the photo of the accident says 14.9
Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk
According to article, “We’ve treated one patient, a man, for minor injuries and he’s been discharged at the scene” so more dented pride and bank account.
Wonder how close it was yo getting under.
A mistake anyone could’ve made. :trollface:
dean_whittlr:
Strange Google maps of the bridge say 15ft and the photo of the accident says 14.9Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk
It must have lost three inches since August 2018.
If councils are arbitrarily lying about the true height of a bridge these days - is it any wonder that more and more drivers are treating the headroom warnings with full contempt?
I drive under this bridge on a regular basis for instance, - and yet I often see Tescos and other supermarket trucks which I know to be 13’9" following me under without incident…
Meanwhile, as I approach with my 12’11" - it sets all the warning “overheight - divert” signs off…
“Just ignore it” - might come back to slap these councils in the face with their blatent falsehoods on what should be a cut-and-dried issue - surely?
TBX tall boys are 15’3
Winseer:
If councils are arbitrarily lying about the true height of a bridge these days - is it any wonder that more and more drivers are treating the headroom warnings with full contempt?I drive under this bridge on a regular basis for instance, - and yet I often see Tescos and other supermarket trucks which I know to be 13’9" following me under without incident…
Meanwhile, as I approach with my 12’11" - it sets all the warning “overheight - divert” signs off…
“Just ignore it” - might come back to slap these councils in the face with their blatent falsehoods on what should be a cut-and-dried issue - surely?
Our yard can only be reached via one road, and we need to go under a bridge marked 14’9". All our trailers are marked 15’ or 15’1"…
I’ve found many to actually be slightly higher than the signed limit too. Our artic boys with low ride trailers have often measured loads with the height stick due to a bridge on the police approved route. You often get to it thinking they’re going to be right on the limit but they clear with sometimes 4-6 inches to spare. I reckon they do this to allow a bit of extra room as many will run right near the height limit.
wide-load85:
I’ve found many to actually be slightly higher than the signed limit too. Our artic boys with low ride trailers have often measured loads with the height stick due to a bridge on the police approved route. You often get to it thinking they’re going to be right on the limit but they clear with sometimes 4-6 inches to spare. I reckon they do this to allow a bit of extra room as many will run right near the height limit.
They will always be higher than the figure marked on the signs. The official (as stipulated in the Traffic Signs Manual) method is to measure the height, subtract 3 inches for safe clearance and then round down to the next multiple of 3 inches to arrive at the figure for the sign.
Eg bridge measured at 14’2", subtract 3" = 13’11", round down to next multiple of 3" gives a figure for the sign of 13’9".
Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk
Well he’s hit that at some speed to put it on it’s side.
Winseer:
If councils are arbitrarily lying about the true height of a bridge these days - is it any wonder that more and more drivers are treating the headroom warnings with full contempt?I drive under this bridge on a regular basis for instance, - and yet I often see Tescos and other supermarket trucks which I know to be 13’9" following me under without incident…
Meanwhile, as I approach with my 12’11" - it sets all the warning “overheight - divert” signs off…
“Just ignore it” - might come back to slap these councils in the face with their blatent falsehoods on what should be a cut-and-dried issue - surely?
The markings on that bridge (assuming the figures were calculated by the official method) show that it has been measured to have an absolute minimum clearance in excess of 13’ 9", and maybe as much as 14’ 0"
Roymondo:
Winseer:
If councils are arbitrarily lying about the true height of a bridge these days - is it any wonder that more and more drivers are treating the headroom warnings with full contempt?I drive under this bridge on a regular basis for instance, - and yet I often see Tescos and other supermarket trucks which I know to be 13’9" following me under without incident…
Meanwhile, as I approach with my 12’11" - it sets all the warning “overheight - divert” signs off…
“Just ignore it” - might come back to slap these councils in the face with their blatent falsehoods on what should be a cut-and-dried issue - surely?
The markings on that bridge (assuming the figures were calculated by the official method) show that it has been measured to have an absolute minimum clearance in excess of 13’ 9", and maybe as much as 14’ 0"
What’s the official method?
Rowley010:
Roymondo:
Winseer:
If councils are arbitrarily lying about the true height of a bridge these days - is it any wonder that more and more drivers are treating the headroom warnings with full contempt?I drive under this bridge on a regular basis for instance, - and yet I often see Tescos and other supermarket trucks which I know to be 13’9" following me under without incident…
Meanwhile, as I approach with my 12’11" - it sets all the warning “overheight - divert” signs off…
“Just ignore it” - might come back to slap these councils in the face with their blatent falsehoods on what should be a cut-and-dried issue - surely?
The markings on that bridge (assuming the figures were calculated by the official method) show that it has been measured to have an absolute minimum clearance in excess of 13’ 9", and maybe as much as 14’ 0"
What’s the official method?
Page 38, paragraph 7.4 and 7.5 0n file no 4 here gov.uk/government/publicati … gns-manual
Rowley010:
What’s the official method?
I explained it in post #11 in this very thread.
Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk