One of our drivers got stopped last week he entered the weight limit which is about 7 miles long his first delivery was 1 mile from one of the entrances to the weight limit and the other was at the other end of it it was an except for access limit he said he was told that to do the other delivery he would have to go back out the way he came in and go all the way round and come in about 1 mile from the other end of the limit I told him it was 8oiiosks but im not 100% sure it was however I would have stood and argued with the people that stopped him and said im in it and im going to carry on to the next drop would I have been right?
Logistics Loader:
if a bridge or weight restriction is 17T… 1 bus going over it is ok…
but two buses travelling opposite each other is total weight of 28tonne…
Most bridges would have tolerances built in to accommodate for this and then another 30-50%
Most of these 7.5t restrictions are put up by councils in response to NIMBYism, to stop HGVs using residential areas as rat-runs. These are signs put up for ‘environmental’ reasons, as opposed to structural reasons and are non-endorseable.
See: gov.uk/government/uploads/s … ter-03.pdf
Page 35 Para 5.15 to 5.17.
In order for the sign to mean anything, there must be a corresponding TRO (traffic restriction order) in place - which, often there won’t be as councils just bang these up anywhere to shut their residents up. Further more, in order for the TRO to be valid, it MUST be signed correctly (conforming to the specs in the TSRGD, often they aren’t) - unless the council has the permission of the Secretary of State to use a modified variant - again, they often don’t.
I (could be wrong) think they can only fine you in areas where the council has authority to do so (i.e. decriminalised enforcement), otherwise it’s the cops. And they certainly can’t fine you (won’t stop some of them from trying, right enough) if there’s no TRO in place, or if it’s not signed correctly.
Remember, there are normally statutory exemptions anyway, (i)Except for access (ii)Except for loading (iii)Except for access to off-street premises. That said, if you ARE just using it as a rat-run… oh well…
Structural weight limits are a different sign, specifying e.g 18t MGW.
For structural weight limits, same document, see Page 38, Para 5.31 to 5.33, example signs on following page. Note, you can only pass these empty, if there’s a plate below it stating that.
And as far as I can see, only the structural weight limits signs (626.2A) are a s.36 RTA 1988 offence: legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002 … on/10/made
legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/36
Summary: If anyone gets a fine, get in touch with the local authority, ask them for a copy of the corresponding TRO (not this is not a FOI request, they HAVE to give you it, and can’t charge you for it - except maybe a photocopying fee), and make sure it’s signed correctly, before even thinking about paying it. That’s if you can be arsed 
There’s a limit on the 755 over the bridge into Kirkoobrie. “17t MGW - Except for Empty Vehicles”.
So, a 4-wheeler carrying 1 box of inflated helium balloons can’t go over but an empty, much larger over-17t beast can? Work that one out.
nickb67:
There’s a limit on the 755 over the bridge into Kirkoobrie. “17t MGW - Except for Empty Vehicles”.
So, a 4-wheeler carrying 1 box of inflated helium balloons can’t go over but an empty, much larger over-17t beast can? Work that one out.
Anything plated over 17T MGW can’t cross, if laden. If unladen, I think (could be wrong) it can only cross if it’s unladen weight is <17T. That said, the TSM is quite specific in what it’s trying to achieve when this exception plate is used, the bridge would need to have been tested to show it can carry any empty vehicle.
I have no idea how heavy the heaviest empty vehicle is. Anyone ?
“5.33 Specifying gross vehicle weights makes enforcement simpler as it is necessary only to check the vehicle’s plated weight against that on the sign, eliminating the need for a vehicle to be taken to a weighbridge for checking. Where an assessment shows that a structure can carry any unladen vehicle, and this has been allowed for in the order, the sign to diagram 626.2A may incorporate, as a bottom panel, the sign to diagram 627.1 (Except empty vehicles).”
That said, 17T, isn’t a currently approved variant (it was pre-2002, in the 1994 regs), so it the restriction is post 2002 you couln’t be prosecuted for it anyway… unless of course they have Secretary of State approval for it, doubtful though. You’d need to see the TRO to be sure. (edited to add 1994 regs info)
“5.32 The sign may indicate weights of 3T, 7.5T, 10T, 13T, 18T, 26T and 33T; these correlate to the classification divisions in Departmental Standard BD 21 / 01 “The Assessment of Highway Bridges and Structures” (see para 1.3).”
They like to make things complicated i guess
In fairness though, that bridge does look a bit dodgy. I wonder what the wig-wag lights at either end are for 
maps.google.co.uk/maps?safe=off … K4BELYDMA8
Edit: Misread and mis-answered. Thanks ROG for pointing out my sleepyness
nickb67:
There’s a limit on the 755 over the bridge into Kirkoobrie. “17t MGW - Except for Empty Vehicles”.
Chris1207:
No, anything plated over 17t MGW can’t cross, laden or not.
Then why did they put the exception?
think about it - no exception would mean a 17t GVW limit but they have put MGW which refers to an actual weight
An artic plated at 44t weighing 14t empty with a 3t load would be legal as the MGW has not exceeded 17t
ROG:
nickb67:
There’s a limit on the 755 over the bridge into Kirkoobrie. “17t MGW - Except for Empty Vehicles”.Chris1207:
No, anything plated over 17t MGW can’t cross, laden or not.Then why did they put the exception?
think about it - no exception would mean a 17t GVW limit but they have put MGW which refers to an actual weight
An artic plated at 44t weighing 14t empty with a 3t load would be legal as the MGW has not exceeded 17t
Indeed, misread and misanswered i think. It WAS after 2am What i mean to be saying was yes, they can cross, as long as <17T unladen. Although, I think you’re mixing up the meaning of MGW, AFAIK it’s the old way of saying ‘MAM’, i.e., it’s maximum plated weight.
Reading TSM, the intention is clear - they want enforcement people to be able to take a quick look at the ministry plate and instantly know if the vehicle is over/under.
Chris1207:
ROG:
nickb67:
There’s a limit on the 755 over the bridge into Kirkoobrie. “17t MGW - Except for Empty Vehicles”.Chris1207:
No, anything plated over 17t MGW can’t cross, laden or not.Then why did they put the exception?
think about it - no exception would mean a 17t GVW limit but they have put MGW which refers to an actual weight
An artic plated at 44t weighing 14t empty with a 3t load would be legal as the MGW has not exceeded 17t
Indeed, misread and misanswered i think. It WAS after 2am
Reading TSM, the intention is clear - they want enforcement people to be able to take a quick look at the ministry plate and instantly know if the vehicle is over/under.
I would love to see that restriction/exception in the TSRGD
trubster:
I would love to see that restriction/exception in the TSRGD
Diagram 626.2 is the prohibition sign, 627.1 is the exception plate.
This, I believe, covers it:
legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1994 … le/19/made
"Signs to be placed only to indicate the effect of a statutory prohibition
- (1) Except as provided by paragraph (3), the signs to which this paragraph applies may be placed on or near a road only to indicate the effect of an Act, order, regulation, byelaw or notice (“the effect of a statutory provision”) which prohibits or restricts the use of the road by traffic.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies to–
(a)the signs shown in diagrams snip 626.2, 627.1…"
"(4) The sign shown in diagram 626.2 may be placed only to indicate the effect of a statutory provision which restricts the use of a road carried by a bridge or other structure–
(a)in the case of vehicles required to be marked with their maximum gross weight, to any vehicle with a maximum gross weight not exceeding that indicated on the sign; or
(b)in the case of vehicles not required to be marked with their maximum gross weight but required to be marked with their unladen weight, to any vehicle with an unladen weight not exceeding the maximum gross weight indicated on the sign."
"Plates to be placed only in combination with specified signs
- A plate shown in a diagram whose number appears and is in the form (if any) specified in an item in column (2) of the Table may be placed on a road only in combination with a sign shown in a diagram whose number appears and is placed in the circumstances (if any) specified in column (3) of that item.
(1) (2) (3)
Item Plate diagram number Sign diagram number
snip
- 627.1 626.2… "
The wording of paragraphs 4a & b are, erm, interesting 
^ Makes sense now. I think.
I was around North Wales a few weeks back and after venturing down a narrow road which I’ve used before I came to a little bridge with roadworks on it and a ‘weak bridge’ 7.5t limit except for access. It was physically impossible to turn the truck around and with a queue of traffic behind there was no way I could reverse. If there was no ‘except for access’ sign I would of probably stuck my hazards on and phoned the office (‘except for access’ made me think it was more precautionary rather than ‘don’t go over here or you’ll die’ kind of thing), but as it was I made a judgement call and cracked on. Never heard anything from it.
Reading an earlier thread about weight limits and it came up that violating them is a criminal offence that can be prosecuted through the magistrates. Is this true■■? And also if that happened would you end up with a criminal record? I know nothing about law. Where’s switch logic, didn’t he study a bit of law?
So Mr Nymby who drives his M5 at 90mph gets a ticket yet, trying your best on this sorry job to find a drop in the countryside - with all the explosive plethora of weight limits - can result in a criminal record through one wrong turn lest you desturb someone’s pleasant evening with the sound of a diesel engine? One tick of a pen and phone call from a nymby on lorry watch and your landed with a big fine and criminal record from trading standards. For what? So those posh middle class t@ssers can BBQ their steaks they bought from M&S in peace (steaks you probably bring to the nearest big shop rdc). A blokes livelyhood and finances nearly knackered, a criminal record that causes hassle with USA immigration for any holidays, to satisfy a group of middle class nosey parkers? What the [zb] has happened to this modern society? Nosey parker doo gooders aplenty these days. People should learn to wind their necks in and be a bit more ■■■■ tolerant and forgiving.
Rant over. Soap box vacated. Sorry…
Traffic offences are not listed as criminal on a CRB check
TM’s got a letter through from Trading Standards saying they’ve observed one of our 15t vehicles drive into & along a road with a 7.5t limit and they’re asking all sorts of questions.
Apparently, although I don’t remember, I was driving at the time.
What’s the worst that can happen? The TM has never come across this before so I’m assuming it’s a pretty rare occurrance.
I would add that the letter looks genuine & not someone phishing.
Whats it got to do with Trading Standards.?
dieseldog6:
Whats it got to do with Trading Standards.?
Would of thought it would be highway department■■?
Chas:
TM’s got a letter through from Trading Standards saying they’ve observed one of our 15t vehicles drive into & along a road with a 7.5t limit and they’re asking all sorts of questions.Apparently, although I don’t remember, I was driving at the time.
What’s the worst that can happen? The TM has never come across this before so I’m assuming it’s a pretty rare occurrance.
I would add that the letter looks genuine & not someone phishing.
Is it a road you use often or first time use - would think you get away with warning but push your luck and TC might get involved? (But I’m not an expert on this you might have to wait for ROG to reply )
dieseldog6:
Whats it got to do with Trading Standards.?
IIRC some years ago we got a letter from them about the same thing, however the vehicle in question actually was 7.5t
Not found out a lot about this one yet but I suspect it is a ‘fine only’ offence and not an endorseable one - i’ll see if I can find a definitive answer somewhere…
You will get a warning first of all so just admit it and apologise, not sure what happens next but thats what happened to one of our drivers.
His letter was from the trading standards too but im pretty sure he said it was something to do with weights and measures too.
In Essex it’s a trading standards affair.
I got a letter about the restriction in Witham when I took the lowloader through in July.
I was observed travelling through the restriction and did not stop to collect or deliver goods in the restricted area.
I wrote back and explained where I’d come from, where I was going and that it was my understanding (albeit wrong) that the turning I needed was within the restricted area. I also stated that the route which would have been better for me was over a 7.5t weak bridge and that at the other end of the restriction there is a sign that says 7.5t and underneath1/2mile.
I pointed out that I would usually turn at the crossroads and hadn’t studied the sign, I was just aware it was there.
I got a letter back saying they were not going to take it any further but to count it as a warning. Apparently it’s a criminal offence to break them and could end up with a £1000 fine.
They have prosecuted and fined one driver £1000 for repeatedly ignoring this very restriction. He worked for Brakes and would have a delivery just before and just after the restricted 1/4 mile section, he ignored it ( and the warnings) rather than go back out to the A12 and do about 5 miles to get there.