|
Another bridge!
On 04/05/2016 17:17, Graeme Wall wrote: Couldn't see the signs, obviously… http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36200939 We discussed this bridge on the South Circular (on Thurlow Park Rd in Tulse Hill) recently, maybe it was over on utl (which I've x-posted to). There's already extensive signage, but I guess there could always be more. Off the top of my head, I can't think there's really a decent alternative route for high vehicles even vaguely nearby - e.g. travelling westwards once they come through Forest Hill it's already sort of too late. Which is why any tall lorry that's had its route planned properly shouldn't be coming this way, but there's obviously plenty for which that doesn't apply. |
Another bridge!
On 04/05/2016 17:32, Mizter T wrote:
On 04/05/2016 17:17, Graeme Wall wrote: Couldn't see the signs, obviously… http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36200939 We discussed this bridge on the South Circular (on Thurlow Park Rd in Tulse Hill) recently, maybe it was over on utl (which I've x-posted to). There's already extensive signage, but I guess there could always be more. Off the top of my head, I can't think there's really a decent alternative route for high vehicles even vaguely nearby - e.g. travelling westwards once they come through Forest Hill it's already sort of too late. Which is why any tall lorry that's had its route planned properly shouldn't be coming this way, but there's obviously plenty for which that doesn't apply. Up the Croxted Road and back down the Norwood road would do it. Clearances of 15'6" and more that way. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Another bridge!
On 04/05/2016 17:46, Graeme Wall wrote: On 04/05/2016 17:32, Mizter T wrote: On 04/05/2016 17:17, Graeme Wall wrote: Couldn't see the signs, obviously… http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36200939 We discussed this bridge on the South Circular (on Thurlow Park Rd in Tulse Hill) recently, maybe it was over on utl (which I've x-posted to). There's already extensive signage, but I guess there could always be more. Off the top of my head, I can't think there's really a decent alternative route for high vehicles even vaguely nearby - e.g. travelling westwards once they come through Forest Hill it's already sort of too late. Which is why any tall lorry that's had its route planned properly shouldn't be coming this way, but there's obviously plenty for which that doesn't apply. Up the Croxted Road and back down the Norwood road would do it. Clearances of 15'6" and more that way. The left hand turn from Croxted Rd into Norwood Rd looks pretty iffy to me for an artic, and Croxted Rd itself isn't ideal. Lowering the road under the problem bridge would be one way to deal with the matter, but I suspect that TPTB don't really want to encourage larger lorries to come this way. |
Another bridge!
|
Another bridge!
|
Another bridge!
On Wed, 4 May 2016 17:54:05 +0100, Mizter T
wrote: On 04/05/2016 17:46, Graeme Wall wrote: On 04/05/2016 17:32, Mizter T wrote: On 04/05/2016 17:17, Graeme Wall wrote: Couldn't see the signs, obviously… http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36200939 We discussed this bridge on the South Circular (on Thurlow Park Rd in Tulse Hill) recently, maybe it was over on utl (which I've x-posted to). There's already extensive signage, but I guess there could always be more. Off the top of my head, I can't think there's really a decent alternative route for high vehicles even vaguely nearby - e.g. travelling westwards once they come through Forest Hill it's already sort of too late. Which is why any tall lorry that's had its route planned properly shouldn't be coming this way, but there's obviously plenty for which that doesn't apply. Up the Croxted Road and back down the Norwood road would do it. Clearances of 15'6" and more that way. I would expect most big stuff is non-local traffic whose safe routes should be avoiding the area rather than just the bridge. What's the betting a fair number of car satnavs will be found in the offending vehicles ? The left hand turn from Croxted Rd into Norwood Rd looks pretty iffy to me for an artic, and Croxted Rd itself isn't ideal. Lowering the road under the problem bridge would be one way to deal with the matter, Not necessarily a practical option if there's something under the surface that can't be easily moved. but I suspect that TPTB don't really want to encourage larger lorries to come this way. |
Another bridge!
On Wed, 4 May 2016 17:32:41 +0100
Mizter T wrote: On 04/05/2016 17:17, Graeme Wall wrote: Couldn't see the signs, obviously… http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36200939 We discussed this bridge on the South Circular (on Thurlow Park Rd in Tulse Hill) recently, maybe it was over on utl (which I've x-posted to). There's already extensive signage, but I guess there could always be more. Looking at the signs they've already got I'm not sure what more they could do other than have overheight flashing warning lights. But then idiots ignore flashing lights at level crossings so... -- Spud |
Another bridge!
wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2016 17:32:41 +0100 Mizter T wrote: On 04/05/2016 17:17, Graeme Wall wrote: Couldn't see the signs, obviously… http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36200939 We discussed this bridge on the South Circular (on Thurlow Park Rd in Tulse Hill) recently, maybe it was over on utl (which I've x-posted to). There's already extensive signage, but I guess there could always be more. Looking at the signs they've already got I'm not sure what more they could do other than have overheight flashing warning lights. But then idiots ignore flashing lights at level crossings so... I think the only solution is to have a sturdy steel beam, painted in luminous paint, a few metres before the bridge (and obviously mounted so that, even if hit, no force is transferred to the bridge parapets). The beam might be a few cm below the bridge, but there might also be a hanging fringe below that so it's right in the driver's eye line. |
Another bridge!
|
Another bridge!
On Thu, 5 May 2016 08:43:26 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: On Wed, 4 May 2016 17:32:41 +0100 Mizter T wrote: On 04/05/2016 17:17, Graeme Wall wrote: Couldn't see the signs, obviously… http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36200939 We discussed this bridge on the South Circular (on Thurlow Park Rd in Tulse Hill) recently, maybe it was over on utl (which I've x-posted to). There's already extensive signage, but I guess there could always be more. Looking at the signs they've already got I'm not sure what more they could do other than have overheight flashing warning lights. But then idiots ignore flashing lights at level crossings so... I think the only solution is to have a sturdy steel beam, painted in luminous paint, a few metres before the bridge (and obviously mounted so that, even if hit, no force is transferred to the bridge parapets). The beam might be a few cm below the bridge, but there might also be a hanging fringe below that so it's right in the driver's eye line. Well he failed to spot the pretty obvious warning signs on the bridge so I doubt this particular Einstein would have seen a painted beam either. But as you say, at least the bridge wouldn't get hit. -- Spud |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk