If my vehicle is 4.2m high and a bridge ahead is also 4.2m high, am I best avoiding it or would it generally be considered passable?
Let common sense prevail. But I wouldn’t attempt it.
Pete S[emoji16][emoji16]
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
It should be passable. When low bridges are signed, the procedure they are required to follow (when measuring in feet & inches) is to measure the actual clearance, round down to the next whole multiple of three inches AND knock off another 3 inches to provide a safe margin. The procedure for metric heights is slightly different but achieves a similar result.
Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk
PFIZ69:
If my vehicle is 4.2m high and a bridge ahead is also 4.2m high, am I best avoiding it or would it generally be considered passable?
Arched or same across 
PFIZ69:
If my vehicle is 4.2m high and a bridge ahead is also 4.2m high, am I best avoiding it or would it generally be considered passable?
If you decide to go for it, just bear in mind that virtually every single bridge strike these days results in a PI for the operator and a Driver Conduct Hearing for the driver, with an almost guaranteed suspension of your HGV entitlement, the only question being how long the suspension will last.
Caveat emptor!
Zac_A:
PFIZ69:
If my vehicle is 4.2m high and a bridge ahead is also 4.2m high, am I best avoiding it or would it generally be considered passable?If you decide to go for it, just bear in mind that virtually every single bridge strike these days results in a PI for the operator and a Driver Conduct Hearing for the driver, with an almost guaranteed suspension of your HGV entitlement, the only question being how long the suspension will last.
Caveat emptor!
That would be because drivers have taken a vehicle under a bridge that is signed less than the stated height of the truck.
If the bridge is the same or higher than the truck (as signed) and you’ve not hit the arch, the traffic commissioner can bugger off and look elsewhere.
Yes, I have taken my truck under bridges that are signed the same, but I wouldn’t risk it if the bridge was 1 inch less.
edit: why are we talking in metric? the law is feet and inches.
ROG:
PFIZ69:
If my vehicle is 4.2m high and a bridge ahead is also 4.2m high, am I best avoiding it or would it generally be considered passable?Arched or same across
Arched bridges are supposed to be measured (and signed/marked) according to the same rules. The marked clearance should be available over at least 3m width - thus allowing for a regular flat-roofed rectangular section trailer/vehicle to pass safely through the “goalposts”.
PFIZ69:
If my vehicle is 4.2m high and a bridge ahead is also 4.2m high, am I best avoiding it or would it generally be considered passable?
The thing is me old mate, is that they might have tarmacked the road or even layered the road while doing road repairs thus raising the level of the road surface by several inches and some dude forgot to tell anybody then your several inches higher than you think.
Duck or grouse!
Zac_A:
PFIZ69:
If my vehicle is 4.2m high and a bridge ahead is also 4.2m high, am I best avoiding it or would it generally be considered passable?If you decide to go for it, just bear in mind that virtually every single bridge strike these days results in a PI for the operator and a Driver Conduct Hearing for the driver, with an almost guaranteed suspension of your HGV entitlement, the only question being how long the suspension will last.
Caveat emptor!
Yep, and if you hit a bridge all the trains are stopped in the middles of nowhere for ages until they have inspected the bridge so any train passengers with job interviews, illnesses, claustrophobia and the like are stuffed!!
stu675:
If the bridge is the same or higher than the truck (as signed) and you’ve not hit the arch, the traffic commissioner can bugger off and look elsewhere.
Brave words, I can tell you’ve never met a TC yet, I can promise you that if you ever do you will be adopting a far more respectful attitude if you have a sense of self-preservation.
And not all bridges are arched, many are flat-soffit, some are combination of soffit and arch, some are skewed but all can be (and are) struck.
And… if you read my post more carefully, you can see I specifically stated “bridge strike” and not “taking a chance but not hitting the bridge”.
Also as another poster has stated, resurfaced roads are not routinely checked for clearance under bridges (though they should be) and may not have the signed clearance and may result in a bridge strike.
True, the driver will not in such cases be responsible, but there will be a furore of driver blaming and other hassle until this is resolved, and it will still impact on the operator in terms of work not done that day and the hassle of getting a hire vehicle, and the bad image/damage to reputation which will follow, because “mud sticks”, even to those who aren’t guilty.
Zac_A:
stu675:
If the bridge is the same or higher than the truck (as signed) and you’ve not hit the arch, the traffic commissioner can bugger off and look elsewhere.Brave words, I can tell you’ve never met a TC yet, I can promise you that if you ever do you will be adopting a far more respectful attitude if you have a sense of self-preservation.
And not all bridges are arched, many are flat-soffit, some are combination of soffit and arch, some are skewed but all can be (and are) struck.
And… if you read my post more carefully, you can see I specifically stated “bridge strike” and not “taking a chance but not hitting the bridge”.
Also as another poster has stated, resurfaced roads are not routinely checked for clearance under bridges (though they should be) and may not have the signed clearance and may result in a bridge strike.
True, the driver will not in such cases be responsible, but there will be a furore of driver blaming and other hassle until this is resolved, and it will still impact on the operator in terms of work not done that day and the hassle of getting a hire vehicle, and the bad image/damage to reputation which will follow, because “mud sticks”, even to those who aren’t guilty.
So what allowance would you add, in addition to the over estimate of the vehicle height to the under estimate of the bridge clearance? An inch? A foot? And what do you do if there is no reasonable alternate route? Take an extra hour for your route? Not deliver at all?
What’s the point of putting a measurement on the bridge if you can’t rely on it. Might as well just state low bridge, no HGV’s
It is the operator’s responsibility to have a bridge strikes policy and to give specific training to their drivers, so the correct answers to many of those questions are going to be decided by your employer(s). All I’m saying is that the potential risks massively outweigh any perceived gains such as shorter journeys.
Earlier this year I was involved (along with other TM colleagues) in helping an operator deal with the fall out of a bridge strike, it worked out well in the end for everyone, including the driver, because in the aftermath of the strike all the right decisions were made. Earlier this week another one of our regular clients suffered a bridge strike, so it’s all hands on deck again.
When I was just doing the driving, sure I was prepared to sail closer to the wind, but it’s a very different perspective when you’re mixing with operators and attending PI’s and Driver Conduct Hearings with them.
Thanks, I do appreciate the concept of leaving an element of safety. I would happily set my cruise control to the speed limit, but switch it off to enginebrake past a speed camera for example, because there is an element of doubt in reading a speedometer. Whereas I see the stated height of the wagon and the bridge as absolute numbers with two roundings up and down already for safety, so …
Personally I wouldn’t do it if they were equal for the reasons stated above. The hassle of the paperwork even if I’m 100% correct legally just isn’t worth the headache IMHO.
Depends if it’s a circular or triangular bridge height sign (with a red outside band).
A circular sign is a prohibition, so a vehicle height of 4.2m or over is prohibited, if the height on the sign is 4.2m.
A triangular sign is a warning, so a vehicle of height 4.2m can pass, but a vehicle of 4.21m cannot. The bridge has clearance for a 4.2m vehicle, usually several cm.
It is necessary to be certain that your vehicle IS 4.2m, the best way to be certain is to measure it yourself.
It has been mentioned that there may have been a layer of tarmac added since the bridge was measured, reducing the actual height to below the signed height.
That isn’t technically your problem. If you’re driving a vehicle of height 4.2 and hit a bridge with a warning sign at 4.2, you are in the clear. Your trailer is still knackered, your load will be late or even damaged, but even if you end up in court, you’re in the clear. The TC won’t shout at you either.
Simon:
Depends if it’s a circular or triangular bridge height sign (with a red outside band).A circular sign is a prohibition, so a vehicle height of 4.2m or over is prohibited, if the height on the sign is 4.2m.
.
No, it’s just vehicles over the number in the circle that are prohibited.
It’s like the weight limit sign, you see loads of 7.5 in a circle, but they all allow 7.5t vehicles to pass.
I wouldnt risk it, even when my height is lower then said bridge i slow down a tad even though i know i can fit i try eliminate risk incase of other tarmac and other stuff