Was thinking today (one of those minutes when you drift off into obscurity) that surely in this day and age that any new bridges that are constructed must be HGV friendly…aren’t they■■?
Hmm, good point!
Can’t think of any new build bridges under 16’ but there’s bound to be some, it’s just that I don’t know where they are.
The old arch bridge at Girvan that was 14ft 6in (I think) was replaced a few years ago with a new one that is now unmarked and can fit a decker under it easily. Even so, I still go the old road for high vehs cos it means you skip the traffic in Girvan Town Centre.
No, there has been a minimum requirement of 16’ of clearance under bridges since the 1960s.
The reason our motorway bridges are so much higher than those everywhere else in Europe is that our motorways were specifically designed to allow the Americans to move their nuclear weapons around during the Cold War. Or so I once read in the Daily Telegraph.
redbob:
Was thinking today (one of those minutes when you drift off into obscurity) that surely in this day and age that any new bridges that are constructed must be HGV friendly…aren’t they■■?
They could always build a new low bridge with a hydraulic hoist
built into the road, then if a wagon did hit the bridge they could
lower the hoist and simply let the wagon drive out.
.
.
Dieseldoforme:
redbob:
Was thinking today (one of those minutes when you drift off into obscurity) that surely in this day and age that any new bridges that are constructed must be HGV friendly…aren’t they■■?They could always build a new low bridge with a hydraulic hoist
built into the road, then if a wagon did hit the bridge they could
lower the hoist and simply let the wagon drive out.
.
.
Are you related to Toby ?
Harry Monk:
No, there has been a minimum requirement of 16’ of clearance under bridges since the 1960s.The reason our motorway bridges are so much higher than those everywhere else in Europe is that our motorways were specifically designed to allow the Americans to move their nuclear weapons around during the Cold War. Or so I once read in the Daily Telegraph.
Wasn’t it also true that all UK motorways had regular gaps in the central reservation so in the event of nuclear attack both lanes could be opened up in the same direction away from London and other major cities? Read that in the Sun.
These days those gaps have been replaced by roadworks to replace the central reservation with a concrete barrier.
cant beat what i [and no doubt other drivers] heard on radio 2 today about a transporter driver coming up to a bridge which was about 13 ft and he was 16 ft,he told ken how he knew he would have to turn before the bridge but as he did so he observed a transit van driver looking out of his van as he went under the bridge the van was 8 ft [unbelievable]have to admit i did laugh
Harry Monk:
No, there has been a minimum requirement of 16’ of clearance under bridges since the 1960s.The reason our motorway bridges are so much higher than those everywhere else in Europe is that our motorways were specifically designed to allow the Americans to move their nuclear weapons around during the Cold War. Or so I once read in the Daily Telegraph.
That wouldn’t be an RDC story would it? 
Ched:
Harry Monk:
No, there has been a minimum requirement of 16’ of clearance under bridges since the 1960s.The reason our motorway bridges are so much higher than those everywhere else in Europe is that our motorways were specifically designed to allow the Americans to move their nuclear weapons around during the Cold War. Or so I once read in the Daily Telegraph.
Wasn’t it also true that all UK motorways had regular gaps in the central reservation so in the event of nuclear attack both lanes could be opened up in the same direction away from London and other major cities? Read that in the Sun.
These days those gaps have been replaced by roadworks to replace the central reservation with a concrete barrier.
Well, now I’ve seen this and it was in the Sun it can only be true!!!
when i said both lanes I meant both carriageways. You must remember during the 80’s and 90’s most motorways had gaps in the central reservation filled with cones? I was lead to believe this was a cold war measure so both carriageways could be used for the evacuation of major cities in the event of a nuclear threat.
Ched:
when i said both lanes I meant both carriageways. You must remember during the 80’s and 90’s most motorways had gaps in the central reservation filled with cones? I was lead to believe this was a cold war measure so both carriageways could be used for the evacuation of major cities in the event of a nuclear threat.
No !
Those cones were just stored there ready for todays roadworks. 
They knew back then that they were going to need Billions of cones just for the M6 ‘Managed Motorway’ & the M25 & the M62 & the M4 & the M74 etc, etc, etc 
This thread is already derailed … dont get me started on bloody “managed” motorways!
fredthered:
Harry Monk:
No, there has been a minimum requirement of 16’ of clearance under bridges since the 1960s.The reason our motorway bridges are so much higher than those everywhere else in Europe is that our motorways were specifically designed to allow the Americans to move their nuclear weapons around during the Cold War. Or so I once read in the Daily Telegraph.
That wouldn’t be an RDC story would it?
No, and if you apply some thought to it, you might ask yourself why motorway bridge clearance was set at such a height when virtually every single truck in the land ran around at a maximum height of 14’.
Trucks got taller to take advantage of bridge clearances, not the other way around.
Do they make low bridges?
Or is it just high roads?
Well they certainly got it wrong when they built the interchange on the A20 at Sidcup that replaced the traffic lights at Perry Street, because that is 16’ 3" going North and 16’ going South.
Denis F:
Are you related to Toby ?
.
Only if he has a lot of money.
.
No they shrink as the get older
DAF95XF:
No they shrink as the get older
sad but true 
They built a new road in Watford about 20 odd years ago which crosses another road over a new 10’ bridge, but this is only because the road it crosses has an old 10’ railway bridge a few yards further down (the new road runs alongside the railway).