"I didn't see a bridge.."

[Alan]

Even with our super new bypass, numpties still exist...

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-58795335>

--
Alan

Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.1aswnbi8l776by@alan>, at 18:39:01 on Tue, 5 Oct 2021,
Alan <eternal....@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:

>
>Even with our super new bypass, numpties still exist...
>
><https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-58795335>

Look on the bright side, the driver was reported for a driving offence.

The chatter on Facebook always says "they should be reported (but
obviously we assume they never are) at which point word would
mysteriously get around to people who have never been to Cambridgeshire
before, let alone Ely, that even if you don't mind damaging your van, in
future avoid that route for fear of prosecution".
--
Roland Perry

[Tim Ward]

The message is simpler than that: "Read the ****ing signs".

--
Tim Ward - 07801 703 600
www.brettward.co.uk

[Roland Perry]

In message <sjjl7f$32m$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:02:56 on Wed, 6 Oct 2021,
Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:

Yes, but there's two problems with that. Some drivers either don't know
(or forget) the height of their vehicle. And others assume that flashing
warnings must be for another vehicle (perhaps the one behind them?)

In other news, I was flashed on the Addenbrookes campus yesterday by a
"SLOW DOWN" sign, which also said my speed was 27mph. The problem is,
that bit of road is 30mph. (Yes, other bits are 20mph, but this wasn't
one of them). I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to what extent
either speed limit is set by a TRO, rather than some sort of in-house
penalty fee arrangement. It's on the private roads beyond the "No entry
except for hospital access" signage.
--
Roland Perry

[Tim Ward]

On 06/10/2021 09:22, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> Yes, but there's two problems with that. Some drivers either don't know
> (or forget) the height of their vehicle.

It should be on a ****ing placard right in front of their eyes FFS!!!

> In other news, I was flashed on the Addenbrookes campus yesterday by a
> "SLOW DOWN" sign, which also said my speed was 27mph. The problem is,
> that bit of road is 30mph. (Yes, other bits are 20mph, but this wasn't
> one of them).

On the 20mph bit the highest I've got the sign to read on my bike is 24
... but I'd already done about ten miles by the time I got there.

[Roland Perry]

In message <sjjn4d$ea9$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:35:27 on Wed, 6 Oct 2021,
Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:

>On 06/10/2021 09:22, Roland Perry wrote:

>> Yes, but there's two problems with that. Some drivers either don't
>>know (or forget) the height of their vehicle.
>
>It should be on a ****ing placard right in front of their eyes FFS!!!

Only if the vehicle is more than 3m tall. The Ely bridge is 2.7m.

Find me a Range Rover driver who knows exactly how tall his vehicle is,
and I'll find you a railway bridge it won't fit under.

>> In other news, I was flashed on the Addenbrookes campus yesterday by
>>a "SLOW DOWN" sign, which also said my speed was 27mph. The problem
>>is, that bit of road is 30mph. (Yes, other bits are 20mph, but this
>>wasn't one of them).
>
>On the 20mph bit the highest I've got the sign to read on my bike is 24
>... but I'd already done about ten miles by the time I got there.
>

--

Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <sjjn4d$ea9$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:35:27 on Wed, 6 Oct 2021,
Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:

>On the 20mph bit the highest I've got the sign to read on my bike is 24
>... but I'd already done about ten miles by the time I got there.

The problem here is false alarms (aka crying wolf). I was clocked by the
local volunteer Speedwatch, doing about 38mph. The problem being, it was
a 40mph road.

I stopped the car and went to have a conversation with them.

Turns out their radar-triggered signs have 30mph baked into them, and
they have no rational explanation why they deploy them on 40mph roads.
--
Roland Perry

[Alan]

On Wed, 06 Oct 2021 05:35:52 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

But I see today, that as usual, they didn't remove their debris, virtually
the whole roof left on the verge.

Shame the Council (or Highways) can't send him a bill for clearing up.

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.1aug8sgpl776by@alan>, at 15:01:30 on Wed, 6 Oct 2021,

Alan <eternal....@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:
>On Wed, 06 Oct 2021 05:35:52 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> In message <op.1aswnbi8l776by@alan>, at 18:39:01 on Tue, 5 Oct 2021,
>>Alan <eternal....@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>> Even with our super new bypass, numpties still exist...
>>>
>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-58795335>
>>
>>
>> Look on the bright side, the driver was reported for a driving offence.
>>
>> The chatter on Facebook always says "they should be reported (but
>>obviously we assume they never are) at which point word would
>>mysteriously get around to people who have never been to
>>Cambridgeshire before, let alone Ely, that even if you don't mind
>>damaging your van, in future avoid that route for fear of prosecution".
>
>But I see today, that as usual, they didn't remove their debris,
>virtually the whole roof left on the verge.
>
>Shame the Council (or Highways) can't send him a bill for clearing up.

Report it as fly-tipping to ECDC, and maybe they will!
--
Roland Perry

[Alan]

On Wed, 06 Oct 2021 16:03:19 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>

wrote:

> In message <op.1aug8sgpl776by@alan>, at 15:01:30 on Wed, 6 Oct 2021,
> Alan <eternal....@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:
>> On Wed, 06 Oct 2021 05:35:52 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <op.1aswnbi8l776by@alan>, at 18:39:01 on Tue, 5 Oct 2021,
>>> Alan <eternal....@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>> Even with our super new bypass, numpties still exist...
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-58795335>
>>>
>>>
>>> Look on the bright side, the driver was reported for a driving offence.
>>>
>>> The chatter on Facebook always says "they should be reported (but
>>> obviously we assume they never are) at which point word would
>>> mysteriously get around to people who have never been to
>>> Cambridgeshire before, let alone Ely, that even if you don't mind
>>> damaging your van, in future avoid that route for fear of
>>> prosecution".
>>
>> But I see today, that as usual, they didn't remove their debris,
>> virtually the whole roof left on the verge.
>>
>> Shame the Council (or Highways) can't send him a bill for clearing up.
>
> Report it as fly-tipping to ECDC, and maybe they will!

Done - but don't know whether it might be Network Rail land their.

[Alan]

And another one today!!

--
Alan

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.1a1tomrfl776by@alan>, at 14:13:24 on Sun, 10 Oct 2021,
Alan <eternal....@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:
>
>And another one today!!

Yes, a Mildenhire van. And once again only about half an inch too tall.
Not that this will reduce the driver's multi-thousand pound bill, and
perhaps six points on his licence.

Interestingly, not a single train has been delayed at all.
--
Roland Perry

[Alan]

On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 15:44:28 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

Guess their new(ish) bridge monitoring gizmos are doing their job.

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.1a1274scl776by@alan>, at 17:39:30 on Sun, 10 Oct 2021,

Alan <eternal....@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:
>On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 15:44:28 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> In message <op.1a1tomrfl776by@alan>, at 14:13:24 on Sun, 10 Oct 2021,
>>Alan <eternal....@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>> And another one today!!
>>
>> Yes, a Mildenhire van. And once again only about half an inch too
>>tall. Not that this will reduce the driver's multi-thousand pound
>>bill, and perhaps six points on his licence.
>>
>> Interestingly, not a single train has been delayed at all.
>
>Guess their new(ish) bridge monitoring gizmos are doing their job.

Probably. None of the photos have any members of the Orange Army in
attendance, but the one I posted has a police car the other side of the
bridge, which means this chap is virtually certain to be reported for
careless driving (6pts). For whatever reason they don't claim to report
people for ignoring the mandatory height restriction signs.
--
Roland Perry

[Alan]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 09:19:10 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>

wrote:

> In message <op.1a1274scl776by@alan>, at 17:39:30 on Sun, 10 Oct 2021,
> Alan <eternal....@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:
>> On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 15:44:28 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <op.1a1tomrfl776by@alan>, at 14:13:24 on Sun, 10 Oct 2021,
>>> Alan <eternal....@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>> And another one today!!
>>>
>>> Yes, a Mildenhire van. And once again only about half an inch too
>>> tall. Not that this will reduce the driver's multi-thousand pound
>>> bill, and perhaps six points on his licence.
>>>
>>> Interestingly, not a single train has been delayed at all.
>>
>> Guess their new(ish) bridge monitoring gizmos are doing their job.
>
> Probably. None of the photos have any members of the Orange Army in
> attendance, but the one I posted has a police car the other side of the

Yes, that was the first we knew of this one, when we had to turn at his
striped tape!

> bridge, which means this chap is virtually certain to be reported for
> careless driving (6pts). For whatever reason they don't claim to report
> people for ignoring the mandatory height restriction signs.

Genuine question, is there an offence of ignoring mandatory height
restriction sign? Or would it come under some generic dangerous or
careless driving category?

[Alan]

Result - just had call from the council and they are going to remove it.
Unfortunately they can't categorically attribute it to any particular
accident, so the tax payer will have to pick up the bill :-(

Apparently, they're trying to encourage the police in attendance to ensure
debris is removed. Anyone, including the police, moving debris to the
side, or suggesting it is done to clear the road, becomes liable.

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.1a3cagfml776by@alan>, at 09:52:54 on Mon, 11 Oct 2021,
Alan <eternal....@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:

>>this chap is virtually certain to be reported for careless driving
>>(6pts). For whatever reason they don't claim to report people for
>>ignoring the mandatory height restriction signs.
>
>Genuine question, is there an offence of ignoring mandatory height
>restriction sign? Or would it come under some generic dangerous or
>careless driving category?

As it's a prohibition sign in a red circle, I'd expect it to have an
associated penalty for ignoring it. But I don't have chapter and verse.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 13:56:51 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

It would fall under the generic offence of failing to comply with an
indication given by a road sign. Road Traffic Act 1988 section 36.(1).
Typically dealt with by means of a Fixed Penalty Notice and three points
on the offender's licence.

Mark

[Alan]

Sounds good. Thanks.

[Espen Koht]

On 10/10/2021 14:13, Alan wrote:
>
> And another one today!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell-tale_(bridges) won't get you to zero
but might help (as would lowering the road one assumes?)

[Roland Perry]

In message <LBC*p2...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 23:09:35 on Mon,
11 Oct 2021, Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> remarked:

>On 10/10/2021 14:13, Alan wrote:
>> And another one today!!
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell-tale_(bridges) won't get you to zero
>but might help

They aren't legal in the UK (on public roads) apart from a very few
examples which required special legislation (such as the Blackwall
Tunnel in central London).

An alternative is a height sensor that triggers a warning sign.

eg as installed at Ely! Either side, halfway to the bridge in this view:

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/signage-March-2019b.jpg

The permanently closed level crossing is on the right, but there's a
boatyard there too (you can just see the Hoseasons sgn).

A major part of the problem has to be vans ignoring the "Overheight
vehicles turn round" signage, even when activated, on the presumption
that like the traffic lights (and level crossing wig-wags forlornly
blinking years after the crossing was fenced off) they are generic,
rather than applying SPECIFICALLY TO THEM.

>(as would lowering the road one assumes?)

I'm becoming more and more convinced that this was a missed opportunity
when they fairly recently rebuilt the underpass. And not by feet, only
an inch would probably do.

The vehicles which hit the bridge are almost never "far too tall". As
for example when a double decker gets the top ripped off, or as happened
to another local bridge last year, a skip lorry comes to grief.[1]

The Ely underpass is spot on the height of an Ocado delivery van (one
got wedged under a couple of years ago, deflate the tyres to release
it), and about a centimetre lower than a very common type of Mercedes/VW
luton van (eg this weekend). Or exactly the height of this Ford:

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/September-22-2018.jpg

If someone had a bridge that was one centimetre lower than a regular
Land Rover Discovery or Range Rover, there's be an outcry - rather than
heckling about drivers not knowing how tall their vehicles are.

[1] Here's one that almost qualifies, a small van on a flatbed. While
the flatbed cab is a known height (one presumes, but it's often
difficult to find) if you put too big a load on the back, that might
not have been custom-measured before they set off.

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/16th-October-2019.jpg

--
Roland Perry

[Alan]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 06:04:26 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

> In message <LBC*p2...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 23:09:35 on Mon,
> 11 Oct 2021, Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> remarked:
>
>> On 10/10/2021 14:13, Alan wrote:
>>> And another one today!!
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell-tale_(bridges) won't get you to zero
>> but might help
>
> They aren't legal in the UK (on public roads) apart from a very few
> examples which required special legislation (such as the Blackwall
> Tunnel in central London).
>
> An alternative is a height sensor that triggers a warning sign.
>
> eg as installed at Ely! Either side, halfway to the bridge in this view:
>
> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/signage-March-2019b.jpg
>
> The permanently closed level crossing is on the right, but there's a
> boatyard there too (you can just see the Hoseasons sgn).
>
> A major part of the problem has to be vans ignoring the "Overheight
> vehicles turn round" signage, even when activated, on the presumption
> that like the traffic lights (and level crossing wig-wags forlornly
> blinking years after the crossing was fenced off) they are generic,
> rather than applying SPECIFICALLY TO THEM.
>

Some may read the sign and see 9', know their van is 9'2", but assume 9'
has a safety margin and is really 9'6" high.

[Alan]

I think the argument at the time, was that they could not lower and widen
it enough to get HGVs and buses etc through, so that would result in the
level crossing having to remain. which is what they didn't want. So they
opted for the bypass, and assumed over height drivers would read the
myriad of signs properly...

[Tim Ward]

On 12/10/2021 09:43, Alan wrote:
>
> Some may read the sign and see 9', know their van is 9'2", but assume 9'
> has a safety margin and is really 9'6" high.

You don't encroach on safety margins. You just don't. If you
deliberately eat into a safety margin then you haven't got it any more.

Once Upon A Time I calculated that I needed x gallons of fuel in the
aircraft. I discovered that it contained x-1 gallons. The various safety
factors that I'd included in my calculation added up to lots more than
one gallon, and the measurement wasn't accurate to a gallon anyway.

I called the refueller. I didn't need the safety margin that day, as it
turned out, but I have done on other occasions.

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.1a46h9ful776by@alan>, at 09:43:11 on Tue, 12 Oct 2021,
Alan <eternal....@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:

I doubt that they think through that level of detail. Although there
will be *some* safety margin. One day I'll go and measure the bridge.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.1a46nwm4l776by@alan>, at 09:46:34 on Tue, 12 Oct 2021,
Alan <eternal....@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:

>On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 23:09:35 +0100, Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 10/10/2021 14:13, Alan wrote:
>>> And another one today!!
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell-tale_(bridges) won't get you to
>>zero but might help (as would lowering the road one assumes?)
>
>I think the argument at the time, was that they could not lower and
>widen it enough

That would be lowering it six feet or more. Lots of good civil
engineering reasons why that wasn't really a possibility. I presume
it would also have required re-building the bridge deck *wider*, but you
can't raise the tracks.

>to get HGVs and buses etc through, so that would result in the level
>crossing having to remain. which is what they didn't want. So they
>opted for the bypass, and assumed over height drivers would read the
>myriad of signs properly...

The drivers clearly think the signs don't apply to them, otherwise
they'd not even attempt that route.
--
Roland Perry

[Alan]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 10:08:58 +0100, Alan

Spoke too soon, as I receive a case closure notice from the council
reporting everything has been cleared. Oh no it hasn't. It's all still
there!!

Guess the case closure keeps their targets on track.

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.1bg4x2sxl776by@alan>, at 20:40:40 on Mon, 18 Oct 2021,

Yes, I noticed yesterday.

>Guess the case closure

You can re-open the case online.

>keeps their targets on track.

My experience is that "case closed" can often mean "we couldn't find
it". Yes, I know, it's fairly obvious if you know what you are looking
for, but often the information that trickles through to the collection
teams isn't as detailed as it might be.
--
Roland Perry

[Alan]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 07:19:10 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>

Well they've got a photo now.