Another bridge strike

[KeithW]

This bridge on the South Circular was struck again the other day.

The signed height keeps getting changed and isn't consistent which doesn't help:
2009 - 14' 9"
2017 - 14' 3" triangle
2021 - 14' 6"

(14' 6" on this botch)

Clearances can change, resurface a road and the clear height can easily be reduced by a few inches.

[Helvellyn]

There's a legal procedure (I'm only peripherally involved in legalities [our lawyer works in the office opposite], not qualified, so bear with me) which is a distinction between positive and negative "entreat", as I think the lawyers say.

If I put up a sign by an electric railway, for example, and say "Come on this way, it's safe" then that is positive, and if it turns out not to be and there is an accident, there is a liability. But a sign that just says "danger, electric railway" is negative, it is seen as a warning, not an instruction. And the same accident would be regarded differently. Which is why the signs always say it this way round.

So highway authorities, as they used to, might sign "danger, low bridge", and it's up to you to negotaite it appropriately. If you say "Low bridge, 14' ", then it's seen as a guideline that you need to look more carefully, consider your vehicle, etc. But it's a warning, not saying the sign placer has a legal liability.

Yet cannot a road user be prosecuted for failing to comply with such signs even if they manage to fit through anyway?

I'm not saying this part from a legal perspective, because I don't know what that would be, but for a specifically signed height just what would be a reasonable amount of care, considering your vehicle? "Yes, it's definitely lower than the signed height," at least in the case of a flat road I would hope would be considered a reasonable amount of care.

[RichardA626]

This bridge on the South Circular was struck again the other day.

The signed height keeps getting changed and isn't consistent which doesn't help:
2009 - 14' 9"
2017 - 14' 3" triangle
2021 - 14' 6"

(14' 6" on this botch)

Clearances can change, resurface a road and the clear height can easily be reduced by a few inches.

I've heard of at least one big load nearly getting stuck under a bridge due to the road being resurfaced, the solution was to let some air out of the tyres of the trailer until it could just fit under.

[Vierwielen]

If the bridge is being struck frequently enough,isn't there a case to lower the road. In this case it would be tight and might require the closing of the small road to the SW of the bridge.

[tom66]

Some roads can't be lowered. In the infamous 11foot8 bridge, the location of sewer and water lines made it impractical. In the end, they raised the railway very slightly, maintaining grade limits, to get an extra 8" of clearance. It still gets hit occasionally, but it's much less common, so arguably worthwhile.

[Al__S]

If the bridge is being struck frequently enough,isn't there a case to lower the road. In this case it would be tight and might require the closing of the small road to the SW of the bridge.

even if it is possible to lower a road sufficiently, who pays?

[rhyds]

Update on the magic height changing bridge

Flintshire CC have replied and are "looking in to it"

[B1040]

Had to pause in the middle of Ramsey to let a red faced delivery driver reverse away from a low archway at a pub.
I missed seeing whether he'd bumped the archway, no sign of damage.

[Vierwielen]

If the bridge is being struck frequently enough,isn't there a case to lower the road. In this case it would be tight and might require the closing of the small road to the SW of the bridge.

even if it is possible to lower a road sufficiently, who pays?

Is it possible to get the insurance industry to pay?

[RichardA626]

Some roads can't be lowered. In the infamous 11foot8 bridge, the location of sewer and water lines made it impractical. In the end, they raised the railway very slightly, maintaining grade limits, to get an extra 8" of clearance. It still gets hit occasionally, but it's much less common, so arguably worthwhile.

I follow the You Tube channel for this, which will feature any new accidents a few days after they happen.

[KeithW]

Is it possble to get the insurance industry to pay?

I dont see any basis for that, the insurers receive income to cover the costs to individual drivers and councils of repairs not to invest in road construction.

[KeithW]

Yet cannot a road user be prosecuted for failing to comply with such signs even if they manage to fit through anyway?

I'm not saying this part from a legal perspective, because I don't know what that would be, but for a specifically signed height just what would be a reasonable amount of care, considering your vehicle? "Yes, it's definitely lower than the signed height," at least in the case of a flat road I would hope would be considered a reasonable amount of care.

The sign at the bridge is regulatory. Just as with a no entry sign if you pass beyond it you have committed an offence.

5.16 Height limit
5.16.1.  Where vehicles above a certain height are to be prohibited at non‑arch bridges
and other structures with a headroom less than 16’‑6” (5.03 m), the sign to diagram 629.2A
prescribed by S2‑4‑5 should be used as it can give more effective protection than a warning
sign and does not require a traffic regulation order. The sign should not be used at an arch
bridge, as the main risk in this case is from vehicles which, although low enough to pass
through the central part of the arch, might strike the curved shoulder of the structure. Further
guidance on the use of mandatory height limit signs at bridges, including height calculation and
diversion route signing, can be found in Chapter 4.

5.16.2.  A sign to diagram 629.2A may be used elsewhere to give effect to an order and in this
case is prescribed by S3‑2‑27 (see Figure 5-28). Exception plates cannot be used with the
sign, so care must be taken in deciding which lengths of road are to be covered by the order
to ensure that access to premises is not affected. Where headroom is restricted by overhead
cables, such as at a level crossing on an electrified railway or tramway, warning signs to
diagram 779 (S2‑2‑54) should be used (see Chapter 4). The imperial‑only sign is no longer
prescribed, but existing signs may remain in use until they need to be replaced.

The railway bridge at Middlesbrough used to be signed for less than the measured height as incidents had occurred where minor damage had occurred due to suspension bounce. Drivers of lowbridge double deck on that route were instructed to stop at the bridge and them move under it at a low speed. Eventually double deck busesewere removed from that route and a new high load route built.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.57871 ... 8192?hl=en

[KeithW]

If the bridge is being struck frequently enough,isn't there a case to lower the road. In this case it would be tight and might require the closing of the small road to the SW of the bridge.

This is not always possible, in Hartlepool for example this example is already prone to flooding.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.65889 ... 8192?hl=en

[Bryn666]

If the bridge is being struck frequently enough,isn't there a case to lower the road. In this case it would be tight and might require the closing of the small road to the SW of the bridge.

This is not always possible, in Hartlepool for example this example is already prone to flooding.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.65889 ... 8192?hl=en

Lowering roads brings in all sorts of problems, not least a grounding hazard due to the sag curve under the bridge. Approach gradients need to be shallow and that requires lowering hundreds of metres either side so not remotely viable for most sites.

Perhaps we could just stop making bigger trucks for use on a road network that was never designed for them?

[jnty]

Another often suggested solution is to build sacrificial structures immediately before high-risk railway bridges to avoid disruption to the railway line - but I seem to recall some kind of legal liability issue around 'creating' a new hazard?

I suppose the cost-benefit analyses of these things will end up quite finely balanced. If the bridge is fairly sturdy and not usually damaged by bridge strikes, you're trading of major works against a few hours railway disruption every so often.

[rhyds]

Update on the magic height changing bridge

Flintshire CC have replied and are "looking in to it"

Update to the previous update:

Apparently following a review the job has been passed to the correct department for resolution "at the earliest opportunity"

Now, I'm guessing said "earliest opportunity" will be the next signage replacement in 3-5 working years rather than someone going out in a week with a load of patches!

[Chris5156]

Now, I'm guessing said "earliest opportunity" will be the next signage replacement in 3-5 working years rather than someone going out in a week with a load of patches!

Probably depends very much on how much of an urgent safety issue they think it is, and how much money is left in the pot.

[rhyds]

Now, I'm guessing said "earliest opportunity" will be the next signage replacement in 3-5 working years rather than someone going out in a week with a load of patches!

Probably depends very much on how much of an urgent safety issue they think it is, and how much money is left in the pot.

I fully understand this, however I find it utterly baffling nobody noticed the disparity when the last/newer batch of signs went in.

[Bryn666]

Now, I'm guessing said "earliest opportunity" will be the next signage replacement in 3-5 working years rather than someone going out in a week with a load of patches!

Probably depends very much on how much of an urgent safety issue they think it is, and how much money is left in the pot.

I fully understand this, however I find it utterly baffling nobody noticed the disparity when the last/newer batch of signs went in.

You think people check their work these days?

[Nathan_A_RF]

Nasty one in Rutland
https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/ ... e-9282824/