Low bridge adjacent to level crossing

[jfuller595@gma]

Just wonder why some bridge height signs are advisory (triangle) and some circular (set out the law). A long time ago I was given to understand that an (over) bridge strike is an absolute offence (i.e. no defence) but does the sign being advisory alter that?
Presumably, if you drive a (say) 13' 4" vehicle under a bridge with 13' 3" in a circle, an offence is committed even if the vehicle does not make contacts with the bridge (because of the tolerance in the sign for e.g. resurfacing)

As a lorry driver, I've found bridge height signs frustrating at times. Plenty of bridges are far from the displayed height but I've had to use them

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Oct 2023 ==

In this example, the Triangle advises you of the upcoming hazard/restriction before you get to the actual prohibition (the sign on the bridge is circular).

I've seen it mentioned on here before - so may not be totally accurate - that flat deck bridges are prohibitions because the signed height is continuous across the road but arch bridges should be advisory because the signed height is taken at a particular section and specific vehicles taller than the signed height may be able to pass safely under the bridge. I'm sure there will be counter examples of both.

Regarding the OP's question - I take it from the photographs there is a watercourse behind the road that prevents a widening of the angle of the road junction? In this case I would explore the installation of priority chicane gates. Relatively cheap to install and self-enforcing. Widely used to good effect in many villages that suffer from being a sharp bend on a fast road. Closure of the underpass to motor traffic will increase the risk on the crossing itself which NR won't sanction paying for the upgrades as you've pointed out, while modification to the road junctions is unfeasible given the apparent constraints of the site and if the council refuse to sanction direct enforcement then an "engineering enforcement" would appear to be the only reasonable option left. Something like this: https://rosehillhighways.com/traffic-calming-chicanes/ (other manufacturers are available)

Your suggestion is one that, as far as I'm aware, hasn't been considered so I'll mention it next time I contact NR. Thank you

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Oct 2023 ==

In this example, the Triangle advises you of the upcoming hazard/restriction before you get to the actual prohibition (the sign on the bridge is circular).

I've seen it mentioned on here before - so may not be totally accurate - that flat deck bridges are prohibitions because the signed height is continuous across the road but arch bridges should be advisory because the signed height is taken at a particular section and specific vehicles taller than the signed height may be able to pass safely under the bridge. I'm sure there will be counter examples of both.

Regarding the OP's question - I take it from the photographs there is a watercourse behind the road that prevents a widening of the angle of the road junction? In this case I would explore the installation of priority chicane gates. Relatively cheap to install and self-enforcing. Widely used to good effect in many villages that suffer from being a sharp bend on a fast road. Closure of the underpass to motor traffic will increase the risk on the crossing itself which NR won't sanction paying for the upgrades as you've pointed out, while modification to the road junctions is unfeasible given the apparent constraints of the site and if the council refuse to sanction direct enforcement then an "engineering enforcement" would appear to be the only reasonable option left. Something like this: https://rosehillhighways.com/traffic-calming-chicanes/ (other manufacturers are available)

Your suggestion is one that, as far as I'm aware, hasn't been considered so I'll mention it next time I contact NR. Thank you

 

[zwk500]

The road is called Sixteen Foot Bank because it on the embankment that forms one of the banks of the Sixteen Foot Drain.

Much obliged for the information.

Your suggestion is one that, as far as I'm aware, hasn't been considered so I'll mention it next time I contact NR. Thank you

Any time, happy to help with something like this.
Road safety is, strictly speaking, the responsibility of the Highway Authority not NR. Although NR would no doubt be interested in anything likely to reduce bridge bashes or increase level crossing safety. Assuming the highway authority for this location is Cambridgeshire Council, their own webpage quotes a cost of £25,000 for installation https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/r...-highway/speeding/horizontal-speed-treatments.

 

[jfuller595@gma]

Much obliged for the information.

Any time, happy to help with something like this.
Road safety is, strictly speaking, the responsibility of the Highway Authority not NR. Although NR would no doubt be interested in anything likely to reduce bridge bashes or increase level crossing safety. Assuming the highway authority for this location is Cambridgeshire Council, their own webpage quotes a cost of £25,000 for installation https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/r...-highway/speeding/horizontal-speed-treatments.

I'll have a look at that. Thank you.

 

[Falcon1200]

Sometimes I do grab the signalman when he's going out to open/close the gate and tell him about a strike but often he's got no idea.

I do report them when I see them.

Thanks for the clarification, and well done for reporting strikes!

I'm surprised, given how often this bridge is hit, that there are no cameras there, to identify and record such incidents and the vehicles involved, and possibly to enable the bridge to be examined remotely.

 

[jfuller595@gma]

Thanks for the clarification, and well done for reporting strikes!

I'm surprised, given how often this bridge is hit, that there are no cameras there, to identify and record such incidents and the vehicles involved, and possibly to enable the bridge to be examined remotely.

In fairness to NR, calling them is surprising easily. They answer the call almost immediately. Only issue is, because I live so close and have frequently called for the underpass to close, I'm not entirely sure whether they think I'm making a lot of it up. I've asked many times why they don't just put a camera up.
Some months ago, a van became wedged underneath and the Police attended. My partner had to go out to and speak to them as the Police vehicle had blocked her car in and she had to leave to go to work. Young officer immediately bemoaned how often he'd attended the bridge.
Leaves you wondering, if so many complaints are made, why not a thing has been changed.
Particularly after a death some months ago.

Cambridgeshire motorcyclist dies in collision on B1098 - BBC News

The man died at the scene of the crash on the B1090, emergency services said.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Falcon1200]

In fairness to NR, calling them is surprising easily. They answer the call almost immediately.

Part of my role before retiring was answering calls to the number displayed on the bridge strike sign, and it rings out as an emergency number in NR Control, meaning that it is prioritised over other incoming calls.

 

[jfuller595@gma]

Luton driver: "The Satnav made me do it"

 

[Merle Haggard]

Luton driver: "The Satnav made me do it"

It does make you wonder about some of these drivers; the bridge is 7' so the beam is only slightly above eye level when you're driving a van...
.
When you hire a van, what's called 'over height damage' is explicitly not covered by either the standard insurance or the voluntary excess cover, so whoever hired the Enterprise van will have a big bill from them - and presumably the damage and inspection costs of N.R. as well.

And the van which 'broke its back' - presumably ripped in half in a vertical line just behind the cab door- what speed were they doing?

And I'm not an armchair critic - for many years, I have driven preserved double deck buses with no incident, it seems natural to me to be very aware of the height above you. You may also notice that a lot of d.d. bus drivers duck when they go under a low bridge, just to be on the safe side

 

[jfuller595@gma]

It does make you wonder about some of these drivers; the bridge is 7' so the beam is only slightly above eye level when you're driving a van...
.
When you hire a van, what's called 'over height damage' is explicitly not covered by either the standard insurance or the voluntary excess cover, so whoever hired the Enterprise van will have a big bill from them - and presumably the damage and inspection costs of N.R. as well.

And the van which 'broke its back' - presumably ripped in half in a vertical line just behind the cab door- what speed were they doing?

And I'm not an armchair critic - for many years, I have driven preserved double deck buses with no incident, it seems natural to me to be very aware of the height above you. You may also notice that a lot of d.d. bus drivers duck when they go under a low bridge, just to be on the safe side

It's even worse, the bridge is 6'6"!

I make a point of never getting shirty with the drivers once they've hit it. They know they've been a **** without me hammering it home.

I hear a lot that it's the fault of their sat nav.

Day we moved in, a tradie with roof mounted ladders hit it sending the ladders clean off but he didn't stop. Needless to say I now have a lovely set of ladders in the shed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Oct 2023 ==

Long Buckby, Northants.
Bridge height marked at 12'3"
My unit is marked at 13'3.
But I get under it with room to spare.
The only other way to get to my regular collection is through the village which has a 7.5t weight restriction.
Which route do you suppose 'ze authorities would prefer me to take?

 

[Magdalia]

I hear a lot that it's the fault of their sat nav.

No. It is their fault for using the wrong Satnav. Too many commercial vehicles navigate with Satnav programmed for cars. A proper commercial vehicle Satnav will include the height (and weight) restrictions.

In the days before the pandemic, when I travelled to/from London more frequently, bridge strikes at Ely, Baldock and Hitchin were frequent causes of delay. Satnav was the usual excuse.

What is needed is for Network Rail to vigorously pursue the miscreants' insurance companies for the delay attribution costs that they have to pay out to the operators. That would soon put a stop to it.

Which route do you suppose 'ze authorities would prefer me to take?

I think they would prefer you to use a vehicle that was less than 12'3" high and/or weighed less than 7.5t.

 

[Llanigraham]

Long Buckby, Northants.
Bridge height marked at 12'3"
My unit is marked at 13'3.
But I get under it with room to spare.
The only other way to get to my regular collection is through the village which has a 7.5t weight restriction.
Which route do you suppose 'ze authorities would prefer me to take?

Neither.
Your Transport Manager should be assigning a correct and suitable vehicle for the job.

 

[jfuller595@gma]

Neither.
Your Transport Manager should be assigning a correct and suitable vehicle for the job.

That's just it, the bulk of grain lorries are over height. So I suppose it comes down to the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The letter of the law says that the bridge is too low - however it's obviously not marked correctly so if the driver knows this it's ok, right?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Oct 2023 ==

Carrying grain or root crops is quite difficult sometimes. Drivers are sent to places that often necessitate using weight restricted roads and have to navigate bridges that are completely mismarked. There's one Rutland way that I tried to avoid as, officially it's too low but got under it fine.
Or, through Outwell in Norfolk recently I got diverted over a very old weight restricted bridge.
I had no choice but to go over it as there was zero signage on the approach and no diversions.
There are companies that tell drivers in Kings Lynn to go through the town despite the weight restrictions in order to save time getting to the docks on the promise that if they're fined, the company will pay.

My driving and hours are strictly monitored and I have to update my CPC every five years. However, a suction excavator requires neither. Somebody is going to get hurt before the rules are tightened up.

But a professional driver hitting a bridge that's marked lower than the height indicator in the cab, there's no excuse.

 

[zwk500]

That's just it, the bulk of grain lorries are over height. So I suppose it comes down to the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The letter of the law says that the bridge is too low - however it's obviously not marked correctly so if the driver knows this it's ok, right?

Worth pointing out that the arch bridge is marked with a triangular warning sign so there's no specific height limit enforced, although if you were to hit the bridge you would be driving without due care and attention at least.

 

[P Binnersley]

You are correct - Counden road. Here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/MYJ3RgCgqN5b7K7w8

This was correct, but the Coundon Road underpass was closed to motor vehicles last year as part of a new cycle route.

 

[zwk500]

This was correct, but the Coundon Road underpass was closed to motor vehicles last year as part of a new cycle route.

I'm slightly surprised it appears they didn't close the level crossing at the same time, given the underbridge on the A road and overbridge on the B road in very close proximity.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I'm slightly surprised it appears they didn't close the level crossing at the same time, given the underbridge on the A road and overbridge on the B road in very close proximity.

From what I recollect - I used it about once a week for a period around 10 years ago - if you followed the road you went over the level crossing, you had to make a conscious detour to use the underbridge. Perhaps that was by design to avoid the situation with the thread subject.

 

[P Binnersley]

I'm slightly surprised it appears they didn't close the level crossing at the same time, given the underbridge on the A road and overbridge on the B road in very close proximity.

This is all being done as part of a programme to improve Air Quality. The adjacent 'A' road (Holyhead Road) has the worst air quality in Coventry at double the legal limit. Closing the level crossing was considered; but there would have been traffic chaos from the Independent school next to the crossing.

Almost 1600 object to controversial road closure plan. (Coventry Telegraph)

Almost 1,600 people have objected to the proposed closure of Coundon Road in Coventry.

Plans to tackle nitrogen dioxide (N02) levels at the worst pollution hotspot in Coventry – Holyhead Road – include the proposed closure of Coundon Road.




Cllr Jim O’Boyle, Cabinet Member for Jobs and Regeneration, has previously said the plan would help encourage the use of trains while reducing N02.

A petition of 1,590 signatures has been collected in the space of a week objecting to the plans.

At full council on Tuesday, councillor Glenn Williams said: “To have nearly 1,600 people sign this petition in less than a week shows the level of concern amongst our residents and businesses.


“We understand the need to improve air quality in our city by there are serious questions around how closing Coundon Road will achieve this.

“It is claimed Holyhead Road has one of the highest levels of pollution in the city but investigations but residents suggest these figures are out of date.



“I do see the merit in closing the level crossing, but there must be a better way of closing that crossing and creating some sort of a tunnel underneath.

“There already is a narrow tunnel there. It must be possible to close that and still have free-flowing traffic.”

In the petition, objectors said: “They have not taken into account the knock on affect that this will cause to local doctors surgeries or homes for the elderly or the affect it will have on the commuters of the Coundon and Radford area.”

 

[Annetts key]

My suggestion is to reduce the height of the bridge to 6 foot (1.83 metres). Reduce the width of the road to that of a single carriageway. And remove all white lines at the junctions and any central white lines.

If that doesn’t work, just hire two lots of temporary (road works) traffic lights. Set them up as two lots of three way systems. That should slow the traffic down…

 

[mr_moo]

From what I recollect - I used it about once a week for a period around 10 years ago - if you followed the road you went over the level crossing, you had to make a conscious detour to use the underbridge. Perhaps that was by design to avoid the situation with the thread subject.

Interesting! I lived in Coventry about 12 years ago and thus knew that crossing and underpass well. This is correct - the detour had to be specifically chosen. Interesting that it's closed but it was very low. Thnaks