Typically stupid law making, without full consideration. The *sensible* law would allow a separate, protecting structure, that being a maximum of (say) 10ft away and being the same height, is not in itself an obstruction, as any vehicle hitting it, would have hit the bridge a few feet on anyway! Exactly what exists on a bridge near here - that presumably has grandfather rights.
I think I need to go out with a tape measure, the difference is barely noticeable as a drive-by.
Obviously, but a lamp fixed to such a pole, fed from below by an insulated cable stapled to the post, is likely to be below those steps, even if they are at all relevant.
Again, I'll take a tape measure.
The issue (even assuming they *can* detect a wide range of lamps attached to poles) is what it tells them. It can't reliably define the road as having a "system of lighting", because that depends where the next one is, and how many there are.
The road I pictured, a bit closer to the town has a 40-limit with repeaters. Although largely open countryside. And only one streetlight (which is arguably on the side-street not the through road, would three such side-street locations in sufficiently close proximity count?)
Oh look, another multi-pole, albeit thicker this time:
I didn't say they are not used, simply that I am surprised they are not more used. This is the most hit bridge in 2018/2019:
Belt and braces.
A survey by the Road Transport Association showed that 43% of HGV drivers involved in bridge strikes hadn't checked the height of their vehicle before starting out. It is probably more among non-professional drivers.
OTOH, I have, many years ago, used a cattle underpass to by-pass a frequently closed gated level crossing (now replaced by a bridge) because I knew my car was 4'4" high and the cattle underpass was marked as 4'6" headroom (the actual headroom is always 3-6" more).
Nevertheless, the railway would need to be closed until an engineer had passed the bridge as safe.
Railway operators give the average delay to trains at two hours.
I've definitely seen at least two. They were both close to the bridge, so may have been construed as being part of the bridge, or the planning authority may have chosen to ignore the code of practice.
Why bother when clearly they don't work very well ...
Well that probably equates to drivers who don't check their lights, tyres and insurance before each journey.
I once had to drive a pool car for work. I wasn't impressed that the tax was 3 months out of date. Especially as it had been driven every weekday for that time. I was even less impressed with the suggestion I should drive it anyway. (Luckily there were some grown ups around, so it wasn't taken any further).
I was once handed over a hired estate car by a colleague and found the vehicle didn't have the by then, obligatory 2nd external door mirror. I drove a few hundrd yards to the hire company's premises and obtained a legal vehicle. It was one of the big rental companies.
Sometimes the problem is made worse by people ignoring signs and prohibitions, and that if the ground slopes down to the bridge on both sides, a long vehicle can still strike it even if technically it is lower that the bridge.
A couple of years ago we were loaned a car by a dealer while ours was being repaired. I checked it on AskMID and it showed up as uninsured. Apparently that makes me not only picky, but weird. The correct reaction is to get stopped by the police and argue it out with them.
and sometimes, resurfacing the road reduces the clearance. I can remember a brige under a railway 6 tracks widen which was supposed to let me under with an inch to spare. When I got under track #5 I realised I would have to back out. Somewhere near Port Talbot.
There have been several serious studies of the cost/benefits of sacrificial beams, and the conclusion is that they are probably a waste of time because when a vehicle hits one, the road still ends up being closed to traffic for a while, and then the beam might need repairing, whereas in practice bashed railway bridges generally don't.
In message snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net>, at 18:04:48 on Sun, 12 Sep 2021, Tim Streater snipped-for-privacy@greenbee.net remarked:
In circumstances like that, perhaps the height-restriction signage should take it into account. But then if word goes round that nominally "too tall", shorter, vehicles are OK, then it devalues the credibility of all height signage.
In message snipped-for-privacy@candehope.me.uk>, at 20:21:42 on Sun, 12 Sep 2021, charles snipped-for-privacy@candehope.me.uk> remarked:
That must have been some significant amount of resurfacing, because signage would normally be pessimistic by a couple of inches anyway.
In message snipped-for-privacy@perry.uk, Roland Perry snipped-for-privacy@perry.co.uk> writes
Various height/loading gauges exist for roads and railways. [I recall I had one in my Hornby train set!]
This is an interesting way of warning over height vehicles:
Chris
Fantastic! However, I guess it's pretty expensive, and only justified in situations where the consequences of a vehicle hitting a bridge justify the costs and complexity.
On 13/09/2021 07:37, Roland Perry wrote: ....
However, you don't know whether the bridge has been damaged or not until an engineer has inspected it. While the road might still be blocked, the average delay to trains of two hours is avoided.
In message snipped-for-privacy@brattleho.plus.com>, at 08:33:00 on Mon, 13 Sep 2021, Ian Jackson snipped-for-privacy@g3ohx.co.uk> remarked:
It's rarely destructive for a bridge, but sacrificial beams are often much less robust.
I don't recognise that "two hours". Unless there's a very long tail of bridges which take them weeks to examine, hence skewing the average.
The Ely bridge (/underpass) has CCTV and movement sensors, and the Network Rail depots is a couple of hundred yards away. I have footage of trains running over the top while the van(s) wedged underneath were still being recovered.
Most times, the disruption to trains (average 5 minute intervals) is imperceptible when later looking at RTT. And as one of the country's most-bashed bridges, it has to feature strongly in setting the average delay.
Back in the '90s, the company I was working for was buying 8 off V16,
120 litre gas engines from Ruston Diesels, in the old Vulcan Foundry.They had detailed drawing for the nearby bridge and designed all their skid-mounted packages to fit through it.
One weekend, the council resurfaced the road and lifted it around 3". The next package to go out would not fit and they had to get contractors round in the night to rip all the new road surface off!
The company I worked for also shipped a lot of large packages. One week we had a huge truck come in to move a 180 tonne, 11kv, 60Hz, 3-phase,
24MW, gas-turbine driven, generator set from the shop-floor to the outside test stand - with no problem.Three weeks later, the same wagon returned to move the second one out - only to demolish the traffic lights at the end of the road, while getting to us. The council had put a new set in and repositioned them, with no thought for the existing business that sent more than 50 large loads per annum out!
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.