After a hectic Monday I parked up in Oban with a view to delivering to a farm in North Connel (Argyle & Bute) the next morning. My truck is 14ft high, and all the signs as I approached Oban were saying that the Connel bridge was 13’ 9". Ah well, I’m nearly up on my hours so I parked up, had a pint looking at the sea and thought I’ll phone in tomorrow morning and ask if the want me to take the 80 (!!!) mile diversion to avoid the low bridge. Whilst having a pint I got chatting to a local who told me that although the bridge was signed at 13’ 9", it was actually 14’ 6" and several local hauliers used it with “overheight” vehicles. Next morning I parked nearby & took a look. Definitely ok for me and I passed both northbound and southbound without mishap. So why the 13’ 9" signage? Pic from dashcam!
Delivered to a chap a few years back that used to set the signs for bridges, he said in his time (he was retired) that they always used to have a 6 inch tolerance (13’ 9" would actually be 14’ 3") but the practice had changed so that the height given was actually the clearance (13’ 9" is precisely 13’ 9"), so if the marked height has been the same for a long time then there is “probably” and extra 6" to play with, if not then it is what it says it is. That would explain many bridge strikes, a 14’ 3" vehicle passes under many a 14’ bridge until it comes across one that is actually what it says it is.
A 4127 Greenford Road - 2 bridges next to each other. a stone arch with an Iron bridge right behind it - marked as 15’6" but 16’ deckers clear it - what is that all about ■■
I delivered to Morrisons in Leeds city centre at the weekend. It’s via an underground access road and is marked as 13 feet. I only realised it was this height when I was committed so went for it in a truck at 13’ 6".
Squeaky bum time but it was fine.
This is actually an old railway bridge so you’d have large steam engines trundling through. It is very tight though!
stagedriver:
This is actually an old railway bridge so you’d have large steam engines trundling through. It is very tight though!
It used to take trains and road traffic, both.
Toddy2:
A 4127 Greenford Road - 2 bridges next to each other. a stone arch with an Iron bridge right behind it - marked as 15’6" but 16’ deckers clear it - what is that all about ■■
Depends which direction you’re travelling. I’m sure that bridge is lower at one end.
m1cks:
Toddy2:
A 4127 Greenford Road - 2 bridges next to each other. a stone arch with an Iron bridge right behind it - marked as 15’6" but 16’ deckers clear it - what is that all about ■■Depends which direction you’re travelling. I’m sure that bridge is lower at one end.
Surely there is some faulty logic here?.. I can’t quite get it though.
Santa:
m1cks:
Toddy2:
A 4127 Greenford Road - 2 bridges next to each other. a stone arch with an Iron bridge right behind it - marked as 15’6" but 16’ deckers clear it - what is that all about ■■Depends which direction you’re travelling. I’m sure that bridge is lower at one end.
Surely there is some faulty logic here?.. I can’t quite get it though.
m1cks:
Santa:
m1cks:
Toddy2:
A 4127 Greenford Road - 2 bridges next to each other. a stone arch with an Iron bridge right behind it - marked as 15’6" but 16’ deckers clear it - what is that all about ■■Depends which direction you’re travelling. I’m sure that bridge is lower at one end.
Surely there is some faulty logic here?.. I can’t quite get it though.
0
I have had a decker through there both ways, I did go b100dy slow,
been under there this afternoon with a regular artic - traffic was worse I’ve seen there today
Born Idle:
After a hectic Monday I parked up in Oban with a view to delivering to a farm in North Connel (Argyle & Bute) the next morning. My truck is 14ft high, and all the signs as I approached Oban were saying that the Connel bridge was 13’ 9". Ah well, I’m nearly up on my hours so I parked up, had a pint looking at the sea and thought I’ll phone in tomorrow morning and ask if the want me to take the 80 (!!!) mile diversion to avoid the low bridge. Whilst having a pint I got chatting to a local who told me that although the bridge was signed at 13’ 9", it was actually 14’ 6" and several local hauliers used it with “overheight” vehicles. Next morning I parked nearby & took a look. Definitely ok for me and I passed both northbound and southbound without mishap. So why the 13’ 9" signage? Pic from dashcam!
you are aware that even though you can clearly get under the bridge, you are leaving yourself open to prosecution for deliberately taking a vehicle under a bridge that is signed lower than the vehicle?
and then, it appears that some are even stupid enough to post it on an open internet forum 
shuttlespanker:
Born Idle:
After a hectic Monday I parked up in Oban with a view to delivering to a farm in North Connel (Argyle & Bute) the next morning. My truck is 14ft high, and all the signs as I approached Oban were saying that the Connel bridge was 13’ 9". Ah well, I’m nearly up on my hours so I parked up, had a pint looking at the sea and thought I’ll phone in tomorrow morning and ask if the want me to take the 80 (!!!) mile diversion to avoid the low bridge. Whilst having a pint I got chatting to a local who told me that although the bridge was signed at 13’ 9", it was actually 14’ 6" and several local hauliers used it with “overheight” vehicles. Next morning I parked nearby & took a look. Definitely ok for me and I passed both northbound and southbound without mishap. So why the 13’ 9" signage? Pic from dashcam!you are aware that even though you can clearly get under the bridge, you are leaving yourself open to prosecution for deliberately taking a vehicle under a bridge that is signed lower than the vehicle?
and then, it appears that some are even stupid enough to post it on an open internet forum
I doubt this 
. And what if it’s jackanory? After all the truth is always spoken on forums mmm. It’s taking vehicles under bridges we’re talking about, not releasing state secrets. The law would be investigating the whole of YouTube, and pistonheads.
James the cat:
shuttlespanker:
Born Idle:
After a hectic Monday I parked up in Oban with a view to delivering to a farm in North Connel (Argyle & Bute) the next morning. My truck is 14ft high, and all the signs as I approached Oban were saying that the Connel bridge was 13’ 9". Ah well, I’m nearly up on my hours so I parked up, had a pint looking at the sea and thought I’ll phone in tomorrow morning and ask if the want me to take the 80 (!!!) mile diversion to avoid the low bridge. Whilst having a pint I got chatting to a local who told me that although the bridge was signed at 13’ 9", it was actually 14’ 6" and several local hauliers used it with “overheight” vehicles. Next morning I parked nearby & took a look. Definitely ok for me and I passed both northbound and southbound without mishap. So why the 13’ 9" signage? Pic from dashcam!you are aware that even though you can clearly get under the bridge, you are leaving yourself open to prosecution for deliberately taking a vehicle under a bridge that is signed lower than the vehicle?
and then, it appears that some are even stupid enough to post it on an open internet forum
I doubt this
if you take a vehicle signed at 14’ under a bridge signed at 13’ 6", you can be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention
as, you have clearly disregarded the height warning signs
Yeah. You can, maybe if you were seen doing it, at the time and a peeler fancies a quick ticket on the off chance your lorry is too high, despite the fact it fitted - but that’s not what I’m talking about.
Claiming on an Internet forum I doubt they’re going to send out the whole budget and cavalry to ratify a claim and find proof for this “claimed” most hideous crime of driving AN other lorry that may or may not actually be 4 inches over the plated sign (depending on users intelligence) under a bridge at some time or other, given half of what is claimed on forums regarding motoring misdemeanours is complete horse crap. Theyd be chasing the whole Internet and their own tails. They tend to leave that for the serious stuff.
shuttlespanker:
Born Idle:
After a hectic Monday I parked up in Oban with a view to delivering to a farm in North Connel (Argyle & Bute) the next morning. My truck is 14ft high, and all the signs as I approached Oban were saying that the Connel bridge was 13’ 9". Ah well, I’m nearly up on my hours so I parked up, had a pint looking at the sea and thought I’ll phone in tomorrow morning and ask if the want me to take the 80 (!!!) mile diversion to avoid the low bridge. Whilst having a pint I got chatting to a local who told me that although the bridge was signed at 13’ 9", it was actually 14’ 6" and several local hauliers used it with “overheight” vehicles. Next morning I parked nearby & took a look. Definitely ok for me and I passed both northbound and southbound without mishap. So why the 13’ 9" signage? Pic from dashcam!you are aware that even though you can clearly get under the bridge, you are leaving yourself open to prosecution for deliberately taking a vehicle under a bridge that is signed lower than the vehicle?
and then, it appears that some are even stupid enough to post it on an open internet forum
Ooer!! I’d better shave me head, grow a beard & move abroad, do you think they’ll send Interpol?? - maybe I’ll fake my own death,
Oh SH…t - I’m stupid enough to post on here, now they’ll know what I look like … bugger!!
shuttlespanker:
if you take a vehicle signed at 14’ under a bridge signed at 13’ 6", you can be prosecuted for driving without due care and attentionas, you have clearly disregarded the height warning signs
Surely it makes a difference whether the sign is a triangle (a warning sign showing a physical height) or a circle (a prohibition sign showing a legal limit, which may be less than the bridge’s clearance), much as a width limit sign on a rural road often doesn’t mean you physically can’t get a wider vehicle through.