Santa:
I find it very odd that on one thread we have a great deal of sympathy for a driver who was (through no fault of his own) involved in a fatal accident; while on this (and other) threads people say that they would casually murder a man who tries to stop them from breaking the law.
Have I missed something?
Where in this thread does somebody say they would murder the driver involved?
Davey Driver:
Santa:
Where in this thread does somebody say they would murder the driver involved?
See Ark-Angel’s hard man post up above.
It does make you wonder why the public have such a poor perception of lorry drivers, when you read some of the comments in this thread.
The bridge in question either has structural damage, a fear of it developing structural damage or is simply not capable of carrying the loads. It may simply be that the roads in the town are not wide enough to cope.
If the road sign says 7.5t, the ministry plate says 12,000kg, or an 18t GVW sign and the plate says 24,000kg then even if the truck is empty, it is still overweight for that road.
There used to be a prohibitive sign with an axle graphic below a figure in Tons, this seems to have been dropped in the UK recently in favour of the (t)onnes type Denis F has shown on his graphic
Wheel Nut:
The bridge in question either has structural damage, a fear of it developing structural damage or is simply not capable of carrying the loads.
The bridge can cope, the weight limit was temporarily lifted last year to allow construction traffic (with permits) to access a nearby demolition site.
Wheel Nut:
It may simply be that the roads in the town are not wide enough to cope.
Yes, this is the issue - The problem with Bradford On Avon is that it’s just not cut out for LGVs - it’s a small, historic tourist town with narrow roads and has enough existing traffic problems whilst only cars are using it. I’m often down there as my sister lives there and on a busy day it gets pretty snarled up just with light traffic. Throw some LGVs into the mix and it’d be a nightmare.
Like C-Kay, and others amongst us who largely deliver to rural areas, this is a persistent problem. I deliver to one particular farm which orders 18 tonnes of feed every time, and is only accessible via a road which is subject to a 3 ton weight limit, with no “except for access” exclusion.
I would be a lot happier about bridge weight limits were it not for the fact that councils persistently neglect to signpost a clear and viable alternative route for vehicles who cannot legally pass over the bridges. It is a particular problem in the west of the country. What are we supposed to do, guess?
scottishcruiser:
An artic with empty trailer, even a fridge, would weigh in at 17Tons so why shouldnt he use th ebridge?
Hi scottishcruiser, the short answer to your question is because it says so in the Highway Code.
This post reminds me of the ‘discussion’ we had about the bridge height signs some time ago.
IIRC, you reckoned that it was a question of whether a vehicle would actually fit under/through a bridge, and not that the posted height limit was, in fact a limit. You might remember coming unstuck in that ‘discussion.’ 
WADR mate, I’d politely suggest that you take an opportunity to avail yourself of a copy of the Highway Code, then you’d see that the viewpoint that you put forward in your post simply isn’t correct. Sorry mate, but that’s the way it is.
Whether you take any notice of the above is enirely a matter for you / your boss, all I’ve done is to point out that those are offences as is manhandling a pedestrian. Whether the police choose to take action is a matter for them, but I’d not like to second-guess their decision. 
Wheel Nut:
joedwyer1:
sorry for being a thick newbie. but from what some you have said in previous posts got me thinking… so if my unladen lorry weighs say 7 tons does that mean i can drive through 7.5 t weight limits without worrying about getting caught?No, and neither can you drive over a bridge with an 18tonne MGW sign in an artic or an 8 wheeler, regardless of the unladen weight, unless the sign says, “Except for Unladen Vehicles” or except for loading etc
correct its permissable weight, what the vehicle is capable of carrying!!
tasty:
Wheel Nut:
joedwyer1:
sorry for being a thick newbie. but from what some you have said in previous posts got me thinking… so if my unladen lorry weighs say 7 tons does that mean i can drive through 7.5 t weight limits without worrying about getting caught?No, and neither can you drive over a bridge with an 18tonne MGW sign in an artic or an 8 wheeler, regardless of the unladen weight, unless the sign says, “Except for Unladen Vehicles” or except for loading etc
correct its permissable weight, what the vehicle is capable of carrying!!
Not always, as I said before it depends on the sign.
Am i right that some animal rights activists got crushed by standing in front of some livestock lorries.Could not see what the fuss was about if the animals were going to be killed at the end of the journey,and the more tightly packed calves and other livestock,the less chance of them falling over causing injury,the more loose they were,the more they would fall over on braking etc.Cant believe the cops agreed with the protestor in BOA.
Towns and villages in Europe mostly have up to date ring roads and by passes,it is only the UK that is 20 years behind the times,that has traffic that goes through main town centres,for example Bath,the A36 to Bristol.The lost time and use of fuel must run in to millions a year through this practise.About 45 billion a year from road tax,they spend about 4 billion a year on road improvements a year.And irate Bath residents have rejected an offer of 60 million for a faster bus route and improve park and ride to reduce congestion in the city,the government,quite rightly will invest in another city,and Bath will be way down on the waiting list for future projects.Some of the route would have gone through abandoned waste ground near an unused rail track,which is full of dumped rubbish,then all of a sudden locals say they use the land for walking and dont want the route there,and near some old OAPs back garden.(NIMBYism here in full force).
Wiltshire Times seems to be “Anti lorry” brigade after the story about urinating drivers at Melksham truck park,locals want truck ban there and close the parking to trucks,with fridges running and drivers peering in to houses.Kate Adams wrote that story.
Will let you all know if they can be arsed to run the anti trucker story,about the nutter who thinks he is a road traffic police officer.It can be viewed at this is wiltshire website,the wiltshire times is printed thursdays,and in the shops by 16.00 to 17.00.It is down to the police to enforce bans,and VOSA may remove an operating licence if logged too many times to be flouting road traffic law.The sign is BOA says 18ton,except for loading/unloading and PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY,maybe this truck was allowed to cross the old bridge. 
gnasty gnome:
Like C-Kay, and others amongst us who largely deliver to rural areas, this is a persistent problem. I deliver to one particular farm which orders 18 tonnes of feed every time, and is only accessible via a road which is subject to a 3 ton weight limit, with no “except for access” exclusion.I would be a lot happier about bridge weight limits were it not for the fact that councils persistently neglect to signpost a clear and viable alternative route for vehicles who cannot legally pass over the bridges. It is a particular problem in the west of the country. What are we supposed to do, guess?
I agree surely it would be far better to tell us where to go than where not to.
It happens, you come up to the sign not sure which way to go , cars up your backside. The low bridge signs are as bad , you know you are on the correct road it says half a mile to the 13ft 6in bridge. Now is that small industrial estate before it or after it?
As for some of scottishcruisers comments on here he seems to think violence and road rage is the answer to everything.
dieseldave:
scottishcruiser:
An artic with empty trailer, even a fridge, would weigh in at 17Tons so why shouldnt he use th ebridge?Hi scottishcruiser, the short answer to your question is because it says so in the Highway Code.
This post reminds me of the ‘discussion’ we had about the bridge height signs some time ago.
IIRC, you reckoned that it was a question of whether a vehicle would actually fit under/through a bridge, and not that the posted height limit was, in fact a limit. You might remember coming unstuck in that ‘discussion.’WADR mate, I’d politely suggest that you take an opportunity to avail yourself of a copy of the Highway Code, then you’d see that the viewpoint that you put forward in your post simply isn’t correct. Sorry mate, but that’s the way it is.
Whether you take any notice of the above is enirely a matter for you / your boss, all I’ve done is to point out that those are offences as is manhandling a pedestrian. Whether the police choose to take action is a matter for them, but I’d not like to second-guess their decision.
sorry diesel dave,i respect your comments,but feel i have to take issue with this one rightly or wrongly.the highway code is a guide to road safety and NOT law,as i understand it
Think you need to read it again Buck.
“Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in ‘The road user and the law’.”
buck73:
sorry diesel dave,i respect your comments,but feel i have to take issue with this one rightly or wrongly.the highway code is a guide to road safety and NOT law,as i understand it
Hi buck73, The Highway Code isn’t itself a law as you said, but also as you said, it is a guide to road safey.
It achieves this by simplifying and explaining the various Acts of parliament that affect vehicular traffic on our roads. If you read the Highway Code, you’ll notice some legal references such as Highway Code Rule #90, which is one we’re all aware of:
Fitness to drive
90
Make sure that you are fit to drive. You MUST report to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) any health condition likely to affect your driving.[Law RTA 1988 sect 94]
So let’s say that we choose to ignore it, cos it’s ‘only’ a guidebook…
The little legal reference right at the end tells us what would be written on the summons if we got caught.
Written fully, it would accuse you of breaching The Road Traffic Act 1988 section 94.
You can see my little example quoted above for yourself by CLICKING THIS LINK
If you scroll a bit when you get there, you’ll see some other interesting stuff too, such as Higway Code Rule #92 which tells me what would be written on my summons if I chose to drive without wearing my specs. Further down the same page deals with drinking and driving in Rules 95 and 96 and I very much doubt that anybody would suggest that it’s OK to ignore those because they’re written in a guide to road safety.
So, the Highway Code is just like any other approved code of practice.
An approved code of practice (usually shortened to ‘ACOP’) is a simplified document designed to put complicated law into understandable language. Your boss might have the ACOP on ‘safe loading of vehicles’ in the office, but I’ll guarantee you that it’s better to read and obey that, rather than trying to understand the original law on the subject, cos that’s about as dry as a Ryvita.
It’s far easier to buy and read the Highway Code, rather than The Road Traffic Act (RTA,) Construction and Use Regs (C&U,) Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRDG) etc, etc. We’d never understand them anyway, cos they’re original laws written for judges and lawyers to understand. Those who ignore the Highway Code usually do so at their peril. 
dieseldave:
scottishcruiser:
An artic with empty trailer, even a fridge, would weigh in at 17Tons so why shouldnt he use th ebridge?Hi scottishcruiser, the short answer to your question is because it says so in the Highway Code.
The point here is that when scottishcruiser made that remark we didn’t know that the weight restriction was a gross vehicle weight limit, the article only mentions a weight limit of 18 tonnes, if that was the maximum weight allowed over the bridge then you could legally take a 17 tonne vehicle over the bridge
tachograph:
dieseldave:
scottishcruiser:
An artic with empty trailer, even a fridge, would weigh in at 17Tons so why shouldnt he use th ebridge?Hi scottishcruiser, the short answer to your question is because it says so in the Highway Code.
The point here is that when scottishcruiser made that remark we didn’t know that the weight restriction was a gross vehicle weight limit, the article only mentions a weight limit of 18 tonnes, if that was the maximum weight allowed over the bridge then you could legally take a 17 tonne vehicle over the bridge
OK tachograph, that’s a fair point mate and deserves a good answer.
Corrigenda
With hindsight, I should have written “the short answer to your question is because it says so in the Highway Code in the case of either type of the two possible ways of expressing vehicle weight limits.” 
Thanks for keeping me on my toes.
72. Diagram 626.2A, showing an 18 tonne mgw limit on a weak bridge, replaces diagram 626.2 showing a 17 tonne limit, and 26 tonnes replaces 25 tonnes in the list of permitted variants, to take account of increases in the maximum permitted weight for rigid 2-axle and 3-axle HGVs and buses in updated vehicle weight regulations (The Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight) Regulations 1998 SI No 3111). Similarly, the 17 tonne variant of diagram 622.1A (the HGV weight limit sign) has been replaced by 18 tonnes. “WEAK BRIDGE” may be varied to “WEAK ROAD” on signs to diagram 626.2A. Signs showing 17 or 25 tonne limits are saved until 31 December 2006.
From statutelaw.gov.uk
(4) The sign shown in diagram 626.2A may be placed only to indicate the effect of a statutory provision which restricts the use of a road carried by a bridge or other structure–
(a)in the case of vehicles required to be marked with their maximum gross weight, to any vehicle with a maximum gross weight not exceeding that indicated on the sign; or
(b)in the case of vehicles not required to be marked with their maximum gross weight but required to be marked with their unladen weight, to any vehicle with an unladen weight not exceeding the maximum gross weight indicated on the sign.
As you go into the town the sign says about the weight limit on bridge.but doesn’t tell you that you can’t get round the corner on main a road due to wall and i think pub . had to go over bridge befor when i discovered this